Practice visitations in primary care to improve performance of cardiovascular risk management: an observational study.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-29 Print Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0213
Geert Hjm Smits, Michiel L Bots, Monika Hollander, Ardine de Wit, Sander van Doorn
{"title":"Practice visitations in primary care to improve performance of cardiovascular risk management: an observational study.","authors":"Geert Hjm Smits, Michiel L Bots, Monika Hollander, Ardine de Wit, Sander van Doorn","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite programmatic protocolised care and structured support, considerable variation is observed in completeness of registration and achieving targets of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) between individual GPs in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether completeness of registration and achieved targets of cardiovascular risk factors improves with practice visitation.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Observational study utilising the care group's database (2016-2019), comparing changes in registration and achieved targets in non-visited practices and visited practices.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compared completeness scores of registration and scores of targets achieved before visitation and 1 year after visitation. Data were analysed on patient level and GP level. Separate analyses were performed among GPs who were ranked in the lower 25% of score distributions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed no clinically relevant improvements in completeness of registration and targets achieved in 2017, 2018, and 2019 that could be attributed to visitations in the previous year, both on individual patient level and on aggregated level per general practice. In practices ranked in the lower 25% of the distribution, improvements over time were clinically relevant and larger than the overall changes. Yet, these findings were irrespective of the number of practice visitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Practice visitations in our setting did not seem to lead to improvements in practice performance, nor in completeness of registration of risk factors or in reaching predefined target goals for cardiovascular risk factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523525/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite programmatic protocolised care and structured support, considerable variation is observed in completeness of registration and achieving targets of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) between individual GPs in the Netherlands.

Aim: To determine whether completeness of registration and achieved targets of cardiovascular risk factors improves with practice visitation.

Design & setting: Observational study utilising the care group's database (2016-2019), comparing changes in registration and achieved targets in non-visited practices and visited practices.

Method: We compared completeness scores of registration and scores of targets achieved before visitation and 1 year after visitation. Data were analysed on patient level and GP level. Separate analyses were performed among GPs who were ranked in the lower 25% of score distributions.

Results: We observed no clinically relevant improvements in completeness of registration and targets achieved in 2017, 2018, and 2019 that could be attributed to visitations in the previous year, both on individual patient level and on aggregated level per general practice. In practices ranked in the lower 25% of the distribution, improvements over time were clinically relevant and larger than the overall changes. Yet, these findings were irrespective of the number of practice visitations.

Conclusion: Practice visitations in our setting did not seem to lead to improvements in practice performance, nor in completeness of registration of risk factors or in reaching predefined target goals for cardiovascular risk factors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对基层医疗机构进行巡诊,提高心血管风险管理的绩效。
背景:目的:确定心血管风险因素登记的完整性和目标的实现情况是否会随着对诊所的访问而有所改善:利用医疗小组数据库(2016-2019 年)进行观察研究,比较未访问诊所和访问诊所的登记和目标实现情况的变化:我们比较了探访前和探访后 1 年的登记完整性得分和目标达成得分。我们从患者层面和全科医生层面对数据进行了分析。对得分排名后 25% 的全科医生进行了单独分析:我们观察到,无论是从患者个体层面还是从每个全科医生的综合层面来看,2017、2018 和 2019 年的登记完整性和目标实现情况都没有与临床相关的改善,这可能归因于上一年的访问。在排名后 25% 的全科医生中,随着时间的推移,他们的改善与临床相关,并且大于整体变化。然而,这些结果与诊疗次数无关:结论:在我们的环境中,实践考察似乎并没有提高实践绩效,也没有提高风险因素登记的完整性或达到心血管风险因素的预定目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1