Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012

Assessing methods for measurement of clinical outcomes and quality of care in primary care practices

Zeitschrift:
BMC Health Services Research > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Michael E Green, William Hogg, Colleen Savage, Sharon Johnston, Grant Russell, R Liisa Jaakkimainen, Richard H Glazier, Janet Barnsley, Richard Birtwhistle
Wichtige Hinweise

Competing interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to report.

Authors’ contributions

MEG and WH conceived the study. All authors contributed to study design. MEG, WH, SJ and CS were responsible for primary data collection. RJL, RHG and MEG were responsible and CS for the administrative data analysis. MEG and CS directed the initial data analysis. All authors contributed to decisions on the interpretation of results and contributed to the drafting and of the manuscript. All authors approved the version of the manuscript prior to submission.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the appropriateness of potential data sources for the population of performance indicators for primary care (PC) practices.

Methods

This project was a cross sectional study of 7 multidisciplinary primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Practices were recruited and 5-7 physicians per practice agreed to participate in the study. Patients of participating physicians (20-30) were recruited sequentially as they presented to attend a visit. Data collection included patient, provider and practice surveys, chart abstraction and linkage to administrative data sets. Matched pairs analysis was used to examine the differences in the observed results for each indicator obtained using multiple data sources.

Results

Seven teams, 41 physicians, 94 associated staff and 998 patients were recruited. The survey response rate was 81% for patients, 93% for physicians and 83% for associated staff. Chart audits were successfully completed on all but 1 patient and linkage to administrative data was successful for all subjects. There were significant differences noted between the data collection methods for many measures. No single method of data collection was best for all outcomes. For most measures of technical quality of care chart audit was the most accurate method of data collection. Patient surveys were more accurate for immunizations, chronic disease advice/information dispensed, some general health promotion items and possibly for medication use. Administrative data appears useful for indicators including chronic disease diagnosis and osteoporosis/ breast screening.

Conclusions

Multiple data collection methods are required for a comprehensive assessment of performance in primary care practices. The choice of which methods are best for any one particular study or quality improvement initiative requires careful consideration of the biases that each method might introduce into the results. In this study, both patients and providers were willing to participate in and consent to, the collection and linkage of information from multiple sources that would be required for such assessments.
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe