Abstract
OBJECTIVE--To develop a list of indicators of the general practice care of people with chronic illnesses considered important by both patients and practitioners and to identify the indicators that are considered relevant for patient assessment of health care quality. DESIGN--Qualitative study with focus group interviews and a written consensus procedure. SETTING--General practice in the Netherlands in 1993. SUBJECTS--34 patients with chronic illness, mostly members of patient organisations, and 19 general practitioners with expertise in either chronic disease management or experience with patient surveys. MAIN MEASURES--Aspects of general practice care considered important for the delivery of good quality care that emerged from focus group interviews; the relevance of evaluations of 41 aspects of care for patients explored through the written consensus procedure. Those aspects of general practice care agreed to be both important and relevant by patients and general practitioners were considered to be suitable indicators for patient assessment of the quality of care. RESULTS--Patients and general practitioners differed to some extent in their assessment of the aspects of care that they considered important for quality. They agreed that most indicators of care that related to the ¿doctor-patient relation¿ and to ¿information and support¿ were relevant and therefore suitable as indicators for patient assessment of health care quality. There was less agreement about the relevance of indicators of ¿medical and technical care,¿ ¿availability and accessibility,¿ and ¿organisation of services.¿ CONCLUSIONS--Several indicators of the quality of general practice care of patients with chronic illness were thought to be suitable for the patient assessment of healthcare quality, but other indicators were not, mainly because of reservations by general practitioners. IMPLICATIONS-- Qualitative methods can contribute to the selection of indicators for assessment of the quality of health care in areas where scientific evidence is limited or where patients' and providers' preferences are particularly important.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Basch C. E. Focus group interview: an underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Educ Q. 1987 Winter;14(4):411–448. doi: 10.1177/109019818701400404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eddy D. M. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Practice policies --what are they? JAMA. 1990 Feb 9;263(6):877-8, 880. doi: 10.1001/jama.263.6.877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fitzpatrick R., Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual Health Care. 1994 Jun;3(2):107–113. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.2.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grimshaw J. M., Russell I. T. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317–1322. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hares T., Spencer J., Gallagher M., Bradshaw C., Webb I. Diabetes care: who are the experts? Qual Health Care. 1992 Dec;1(4):219–224. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.4.219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Naylor C. D. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995 Apr 1;345(8953):840–842. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92969-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith C. H., Armstrong D. Comparison of criteria derived by government and patients for evaluating general practitioner services. BMJ. 1989 Aug 19;299(6697):494–496. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6697.494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wensing M., Grol R., Smits A. Quality judgements by patients on general practice care: a literature analysis. Soc Sci Med. 1994 Jan;38(1):45–53. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90298-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Woolf S. H. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 1992 May;152(5):946–952. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]