Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: acceptance and feasibility.

P van den Hombergh, R Grol, H J van den Hoogen, W J van den Bosch
{"title":"Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: acceptance and feasibility.","authors":"P van den Hombergh,&nbsp;R Grol,&nbsp;H J van den Hoogen,&nbsp;W J van den Bosch","doi":"10.1136/qshc.8.3.167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of (a) two programmes of assessment of practice management in a practice visit: mutual practice visits and feedback by peers versus visits and feedback by non-physician observers and (2) the practice visit method used in these programmes (the visit instrument to assess practice management and organisation (VIP)--a validated Dutch tool).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, randomised intervention study with the two programmes, follow up after one year. General practitioners (GPs) were visited after each programme and after the revisits by non-physician observers a year later.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>General practices in the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>A total of 90 GPs in 68 practices. At follow up after 1 year there were 81 GPs in 62 practices.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Scores (mainly five point scales) for questions on appreciation and acceptance; after the follow up visit a year later, scores for questions on feasibility and practicality of the improved procedure and feedback report.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data of 44 mutual visits by peers were compared with data of 46 visits by non-physician observers. A visit by a non-physician observer was appreciated significantly more. After the practice visit at one year follow up, the participants reported to have appreciated the visit and the feedback report and to prefer feedback of a non-physician observer to that of a peer. Participants' reports on the procedure and the presentation of the feedback provided clues for the improvement of visit procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A practice visit and feedback by a non-physician observer is more appreciated than a visit and feedback by a colleague. A practice visit with the VIP by a non-physician observer is a simple, easy, and well accepted method for assessing practice management.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"8 3","pages":"167-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.3.167","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.3.167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of (a) two programmes of assessment of practice management in a practice visit: mutual practice visits and feedback by peers versus visits and feedback by non-physician observers and (2) the practice visit method used in these programmes (the visit instrument to assess practice management and organisation (VIP)--a validated Dutch tool).

Design: Prospective, randomised intervention study with the two programmes, follow up after one year. General practitioners (GPs) were visited after each programme and after the revisits by non-physician observers a year later.

Setting: General practices in the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994.

Subjects: A total of 90 GPs in 68 practices. At follow up after 1 year there were 81 GPs in 62 practices.

Main measures: Scores (mainly five point scales) for questions on appreciation and acceptance; after the follow up visit a year later, scores for questions on feasibility and practicality of the improved procedure and feedback report.

Results: Data of 44 mutual visits by peers were compared with data of 46 visits by non-physician observers. A visit by a non-physician observer was appreciated significantly more. After the practice visit at one year follow up, the participants reported to have appreciated the visit and the feedback report and to prefer feedback of a non-physician observer to that of a peer. Participants' reports on the procedure and the presentation of the feedback provided clues for the improvement of visit procedures.

Conclusions: A practice visit and feedback by a non-physician observer is more appreciated than a visit and feedback by a colleague. A practice visit with the VIP by a non-physician observer is a simple, easy, and well accepted method for assessing practice management.

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
实践访问作为质量改进的工具:可接受性和可行性。
目的:评估(a)实践访问中实践管理评估的两种方案的可行性和可接受性:同行的相互实践访问和反馈与非医生观察员的访问和反馈;(2)这些方案中使用的实践访问方法(评估实践管理和组织的访问工具(VIP)——一种经过验证的荷兰工具)。设计:前瞻性、随机干预研究,两种方案,一年后随访。在每个项目结束后拜访全科医生(gp),一年后再拜访非医师观察员。背景:1993年和1994年荷兰的全科医生。对象:68例90名全科医生。在1年后的随访中,62例实践中有81名全科医生。主要衡量标准:欣赏和接受问题的得分(以五分制为主);一年后随访后,对改进程序的可行性和实用性问题进行评分并反馈报告。结果:将44例同行访视数据与46例非医师观察员访视数据进行比较。非医师观察员的访问更受欢迎。在一年随访的实践访问之后,参与者报告说他们对访问和反馈报告表示赞赏,并且更喜欢非医生观察员的反馈而不是同行的反馈。参加者对访视程序的报告及反馈意见的呈现,为改善访视程序提供了线索。结论:非医师观察员的实践访问和反馈比同事的访问和反馈更受欢迎。由非医师观察员与VIP进行实践访问是评估实践管理的一种简单、容易和广泛接受的方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Engaging patients in decisions: a challenge to health care delivery and public health. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Evidence-based patient empowerment. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red.
×
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