Constructing a framework for quality activity in primary care
G. A. Roshan Perera A C , Anthony C. Dowell B and Caroline J. Morris BA Medical Education Unit, Department of the Dean, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, P.O. Box 7343, Wellington South, New Zealand.
B Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, P.O. Box 7343, Wellington South, New Zealand.
C Corresponding author. Email: roshan.perera@otago.ac.nz
Submitted: 15 October 2011 Accepted: 13 May 2012 Published: 2 November 2012
Abstract
Introduction. In 2009, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners commissioned the development of a framework to facilitate quality-improvement activity in primary care settings. This paper outlines the development of the framework, which integrates concepts of quality with the reality of practice-based clinical care, and discusses its value for primary care quality improvement.
Method. Framework development involved: (1) literature review of theoretical approaches to healthcare quality; (2) field work utilising a mixed methods approach to obtain empirical data; and (3) model design.
Results. Primary care practitioners are juggling competing priorities. Models and tools that promote quality-related activity at practice level need to take into account, and incorporate by design, day-to-day clinical and practice functions.
Conclusions. The quality framework identifies the components of primary care practice and locates this model within the concepts and activities necessary for quality improvement. It may be used by primary care organisations and practices to facilitate focussed quality-improvement activity and self-directed process review. The framework was developed for, and within a New Zealand primary care setting, and is applicable internationally and within other healthcare settings.
What is known about the topic? Primary care practitioners are frequently juggling competing priorities while participating in an array of professional development, quality assurance, and improvement activities, some perceived to be of little relevance to day-to-day clinical care.
What does this paper add? The framework integrates concepts of quality with the reality of practice-based clinical care. The function of the framework is to ensure all relevant aspects of practice are considered in a systematic and comprehensive manner to obtain quality improvement.
What are the implications for practitioners? The framework is a practical tool that can guide practices and organisational stakeholders to continually deconstruct, examine and reassemble any practice-based clinical care activity. Practices wishing to undertake quality-improvement activity within the context of clinical care may use the framework to guide critical thinking at practice level.
References
[1] Starfield B. The primary solution. Put doctors where they count. Boston Review 2005;[2] Perera GAR. Voyage to quality. Report to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners: University of Otago, Wellington, 2010.
[3] Perera GAR. Panning for gold. The asssessment of performance indicators in primary health care. 2009. PhD thesis, University of Otago.
[4] Donabedian A, editor. An introduction to quality assurance in health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
[5] Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51 1611–25.
| Defining quality of care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3crhtl2gsg%3D%3D&md5=a09e82603595311a925b08861e4f228aCAS | 11072882PubMed |
[6] Marshall M, Campbell S, Hacker J, Roland M, eds. Quality indicators for general practice. A practical guide for health professionals and managers. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd; 2002.
[7] Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1966; 44 166–204.
| Evaluating the quality of medical care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 5338568PubMed |
[8] Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997; 121 1145–50.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FktVSjuw%3D%3D&md5=d3c374800d10315584f524f71c000494CAS | 9372740PubMed |
[9] Øvretveit J. Quality evaluation and indicator comparison in health care. Int J Health Plann Manage 2001; 16 229–41.
| Quality evaluation and indicator comparison in health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11596559PubMed |
[10] Schyve PM, Roberts JS. Using clinical performance data to stimulate quality improvement. In: Hopkins A, Costain D, editors. Measuring the outcome of medical care. London: Royal College of Physicians of London; 1990.
[11] Booth BJ, Snowdon T, Harris MF, Tomlins R. Safety and quality in primary care: the view from general practice. Aust J Primary Health 2008; 14 19–27.
| Safety and quality in primary care: the view from general practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Australian Safety and Quality Framework for Health Care. 2010 [updated 2010]; Available at http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Australian-SandQ-Framework1.pdf. [Verified 12 September 2012]
[13] Buetow S. Pay-for-performance in New Zealand primary health care. J Health Organ Manag 2008; 22 36–47.
| Pay-for-performance in New Zealand primary health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18488518PubMed |
[14] Nutting PA, Baier M, Werner JJ, Cutter G, Conry C, Stewart L. Competing demands in the Office Visit: what influences mammography recommendations? J Am Board Fam Pract 2001; 14 352–61.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MrisV2guw%3D%3D&md5=27e7c85e2ae6b1bdc294d1c109fcc424CAS | 11572540PubMed |
[15] Campbell S, Hann M, Hacker J, Burns C, Oliver D, Thapar A, Mead N, Gelb Safran D, et al Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: an observational study. BMJ 2001; 323 784–7.
| Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: an observational study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MrktV2qtA%3D%3D&md5=4e336f8efd3f4aabd5c4d2bc371619cdCAS | 11588082PubMed |
[16] Plsek P. Foreword. In: Sweeney K, Griffiths F, editors. Complexity and healthcar: an introduction. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2002.
[17] Burton C. Introduction to complexity. In: Sweeney K, Griffiths F, editors. Complexity and healthcare: an introduction. Abingdon : Radcliffe Medical Press; 2002.
[18] The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. Aiming for excellence. RNZCGP Standard for New Zealand General Practice 2011–2014. Wellington 2011.
