Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the transferability of primary care quality indicators by comparing indicators for common clinical problems developed using the same method in the UK and the USA.
Method: Quality indicators developed in the USA for a range of common conditions using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method were applied to 19 common primary care conditions in the UK. The US indicators for the selected conditions were used as a starting point, but the literature reviews were updated and panels of UK primary care practitioners were convened to develop quality indicators applicable to British general practice.
Results: Of 174 indicators covering 18 conditions in the US set for which a direct comparison could be made, 98 (56.3%) had indicators in the UK set which were exactly or nearly equivalent. Some of the differences may have related to differences in the process of developing the indicators, but many appeared to relate to differences in clinical practice or norms of professional behaviour in the two countries. There was a small but non-significant relationship between the strength of evidence for an indicator and the probability of it appearing in both sets of indicators.
Conclusion: There are considerable benefits in using work from other settings in developing measures of quality of care. However, indicators cannot simply be transferred directly between countries without an intermediate process to allow for variation in professional culture or clinical practice.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (103.2 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baker R. Managing quality in primary health care: the need for valid information about performance. Qual Health Care. 2000 Jun;9(2):83–83. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brook R. H., Chassin M. R., Fink A., Solomon D. H., Kosecoff J., Park R. E. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53–63. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300002774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brook R. H., McGlynn E. A., Cleary P. D. Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 26;335(13):966–970. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609263351311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McKee M., Figueras J. Comparing health care systems: how do we know if we can learn from others? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):122–125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mulligan J., Appleby J., Harrison A. Measuring the performance of health systems. BMJ. 2000 Jul 22;321(7255):191–192. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7255.191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Naylor C. D. What is appropriate care? N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1918–1920. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199806253382612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shekelle P. G., Kahan J. P., Bernstein S. J., Leape L. L., Kamberg C. J., Park R. E. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1888–1895. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199806253382607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thomson R. G., McElroy H., Kazandjian V. A. Maryland Hospital Quality Indicator Project in the United Kingdom: an approach for promoting continuous quality improvement. Qual Health Care. 1997 Mar;6(1):49–55. doi: 10.1136/qshc.6.1.49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]