Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2004 Oct;13(5):356–362. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.009332

RCGP Quality Team Development programme: an illuminative evaluation

F Macfarlane 1, T Greenhalgh 1, T Schofield 1, T Desombre 1
PMCID: PMC1743884  PMID: 15465939

Abstract

Background: There is increasing interest in quality initiatives that are locally owned and delivered, team based, multiprofessional, and formative. The Royal College of General Practitioners' Quality Team Development (QTD) programme is one such initiative aimed at developing primary healthcare teams and their services.

Aims: To evaluate QTD from the perspective of participants and assessors.

Setting: UK primary health care.

Design and method: Twelve of 14 practices and all four primary care organisations (PCOs) approached agreed to participate. Thirty four semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and analysed using the constant comparative method.

Results: The QTD programme appears to be highly valued by participating organisations. Practice based respondents perceived it as acceptable and feasible, and reported positive changes in teamwork and patient services. They valued its formative, participative, and multiprofessional nature, especially the peer review element. PCOs saw QTD as a method of delivering on prevailing national policies on clinical quality and modernisation agendas as well as promoting interorganisational collaboration. The main concerns raised were the workload, particularly for assessors, and maintaining the quality of the assessments and the programme.

Conclusion: This qualitative study suggests positive benefits for participants in the QTD programme. However, such practices are a self-selecting innovative minority. Further research is needed on more typical practices to identify barriers to their participation in QTD or other formative, team based quality improvement programmes.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (83.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berwick D. M. A primer on leading the improvement of systems. BMJ. 1996 Mar 9;312(7031):619–622. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7031.619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beyer M., Gerlach F. M., Flies U., Grol R., Król Z., Munck A., Olesen F., O'Riordan M., Seuntjens L., Szecsenyi J. The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe. Results of a survey in 26 European countries. Fam Pract. 2003 Aug;20(4):443–451. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Campbell S. M., Braspenning J., Hutchinson A., Marshall M. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Dec;11(4):358–364. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carroll J. S., Edmondson A. C. Leading organisational learning in health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Mar;11(1):51–56. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.1.51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Darling H. Continuous quality improvement: does it make a difference? Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):755–757. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Davies H. T., Nutley S. M. Developing learning organisations in the new NHS. BMJ. 2000 Apr 8;320(7240):998–1001. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7240.998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dewan N. A., Daniels A., Zieman G., Kramer T. The National Outcomes Management Project: a benchmarking collaborative. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2000 Nov;27(4):431–436. doi: 10.1007/BF02287824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elwyn Glyn, Hocking Paul, Burtonwood Ann, Harry Karan, Turner Arthur. Learning to plan? A critical fiction about the facilitation of professional and practice development plans in primary care. J Interprof Care. 2002 Nov;16(4):349–358. doi: 10.1080/1356182021000008274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gerlach F. M., Beyer M., Römer A. Quality circles in ambulatory care: state of development and future perspective in Germany. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Feb;10(1):35–42. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/10.1.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Koeck C. Time for organisational development in healthcare organisations. Improving quality for patients means changing the organisation. BMJ. 1998 Nov 7;317(7168):1267–1268. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Moss F., Garside P., Dawson S. Organisational change: the key to quality improvement. Qual Health Care. 1998 Dec;7 (Suppl):S1–S2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ovretveit J. A team quality improvement sequence for complex problems. Qual Health Care. 1999 Dec;8(4):239–246. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.4.239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ovretveit J. Would it work for us? Learning from quality improvement in Europe and beyond. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1997 Jan;23(1):7–22. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30290-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ovretveit John, Gustafson David. Using research to inform quality programmes. BMJ. 2003 Apr 5;326(7392):759–761. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7392.759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schofield T. P., Hasler J. C. Approval of trainers and training practices in the Oxford region: criteria. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Feb 18;288(6416):538–540. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6416.538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilkinson E. K., McColl A., Exworthy M., Roderick P., Smith H., Moore M., Gabbay J. Reactions to the use of evidence-based performance indicators in primary care: a qualitative study. Qual Health Care. 2000 Sep;9(3):166–174. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.3.166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. van den Hombergh P., Grol R., van den Hoogen H. J., van den Bosch W. J. Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: acceptance and feasibility. Qual Health Care. 1999 Sep;8(3):167–171. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.3.167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. van den Hombergh P., Grol R., van den Hoogen H. J., van den Bosch W. J. Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: acceptance and feasibility. Qual Health Care. 1999 Sep;8(3):167–171. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.3.167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. van den Hombergh P., Grol R., van den Hoogen H. J., van den Bosch W. J. Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: mutual visits and feedback by peers compared with visits and feedback by non-physician observers. Qual Health Care. 1999 Sep;8(3):161–166. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.3.161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. ØVretveit J., Bate P., Cleary P., Cretin S., Gustafson D., McInnes K., McLeod H., Molfenter T., Plsek P., Robert G. Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Dec;11(4):345–351. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Øvretveit J., Gustafson D. Evaluation of quality improvement programmes. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Sep;11(3):270–275. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.3.270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Øvretveit John. Producing useful research about quality improvement. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2002;15(6-7):294–302. doi: 10.1108/09526860210448465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES