Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2003 Dec;12(6):421–427. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.6.421

Assessing the quality of care of multiple conditions in general practice: practical and methodological problems

S Kirk 1, S Campbell 1, S Kennell-Webb 1, D Reeves 1, M Roland 1, M Marshall 1
PMCID: PMC1758041  PMID: 14645757

Abstract

Objective: To investigate practical and methodological problems in assessing the quality of care of multiple conditions in general practice.

Setting: Sixteen general practices from two socioeconomically diverse regions in the UK.

Method: Quality of care was assessed in 100 randomly selected patient records in each practice using an established set of quality indicators covering 23 conditions commonly seen in primary care. Inter-rater reliability assessment was carried out for five of the conditions.

Results: Conducting simultaneous quality assessment across multiple conditions is highly resource intensive. Poor data quality and the low prevalence of some items of care defined by the indicators are significant problems. Scores for individual indicators require very large samples for reliable assessment. Quality scores are more reliable when reported at a higher unit of analysis. This is particularly true for indicators and conditions with low prevalence where data may need to be aggregated to the level of groups of conditions or organisational providers. There is no single ideal way of aggregating quality scores.

Conclusion: The study identified some of the practical and methodological difficulties in assessing quality of care across multiple conditions. For improved quality assessment, advances in information technology and improvements in data quality are required for more efficient and reliable data extraction from medical records, together with the development of methods for combining scores across indicators, conditions, and practices. However, electronic data extraction methods will still be based on the assumption that the care recorded reflects the care provided.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (212.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  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. Campbell S. M., Roland M. O., Buetow S. A. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000 Dec;51(11):1611–1625. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00057-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell S. M., Roland M. O., Shekelle P. G., Cantrill J. A., Buetow S. A., Cragg D. K. Development of review criteria for assessing the quality of management of stable angina, adult asthma, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in general practice. Qual Health Care. 1999 Mar;8(1):6–15. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.1.6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carroll K., Majeed A. Comorbidity associated with atrial fibrillation: a general practice-based study. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Nov;51(472):884-6, 889-91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Marshall Martin, Roland Martin. The new contract: renaissance or requiem for general practice? Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Jul;52(480):531–532. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McColl A., Roderick P., Gabbay J., Smith H., Moore M. Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach. BMJ. 1998 Nov 14;317(7169):1354–1360. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7169.1354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McGlynn E. A., Kerr E. A., Asch S. M. New approach to assessing clinical quality of care for women: the QA Tool system. Womens Health Issues. 1999 Jul-Aug;9(4):184–192. doi: 10.1016/s1049-3867(99)00009-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Roland M., Marshall M. General practice in an age of measurement. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Aug;51(469):611–612. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schuster M. A., McGlynn E. A., Brook R. H. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):517-63, 509. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Seddon M. E., Marshall M. N., Campbell S. M., Roland M. O. Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10(3):152–158. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100152... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Starfield B. New paradigms for quality in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Apr;51(465):303–309. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES