van den Hombergh P, Grol R, van den Hoogen H J, van den Bosch W J
Department of General Practice and Social Medicine, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Qual Health Care. 1999 Sep;8(3):167-71. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.3.167.
To evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of (a) two programmes of assessment of practice management in a practice visit: mutual practice visits and feedback by peers versus visits and feedback by non-physician observers and (2) the practice visit method used in these programmes (the visit instrument to assess practice management and organisation (VIP)--a validated Dutch tool).
Prospective, randomised intervention study with the two programmes, follow up after one year. General practitioners (GPs) were visited after each programme and after the revisits by non-physician observers a year later.
General practices in the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994.
A total of 90 GPs in 68 practices. At follow up after 1 year there were 81 GPs in 62 practices.
Scores (mainly five point scales) for questions on appreciation and acceptance; after the follow up visit a year later, scores for questions on feasibility and practicality of the improved procedure and feedback report.
Data of 44 mutual visits by peers were compared with data of 46 visits by non-physician observers. A visit by a non-physician observer was appreciated significantly more. After the practice visit at one year follow up, the participants reported to have appreciated the visit and the feedback report and to prefer feedback of a non-physician observer to that of a peer. Participants' reports on the procedure and the presentation of the feedback provided clues for the improvement of visit procedures.
A practice visit and feedback by a non-physician observer is more appreciated than a visit and feedback by a colleague. A practice visit with the VIP by a non-physician observer is a simple, easy, and well accepted method for assessing practice management.
评估(1)在一次诊疗访问中两种实践管理评估方案的可行性和可接受性:同行间相互诊疗访问及反馈与非医生观察员进行的访问及反馈;(2)这些方案中使用的诊疗访问方法(评估实践管理与组织的访问工具(VIP)——一种经过验证的荷兰工具)。
对这两种方案进行前瞻性、随机干预研究,随访一年。在每个方案实施后以及一年后非医生观察员进行再次访问后,对全科医生(GPs)进行访问。
1993年和1994年荷兰的全科医疗诊所。
68家诊所的90名全科医生。一年后的随访中有62家诊所的81名全科医生。
关于赞赏和接受程度问题的评分(主要为五点量表);一年后的随访访问后,关于改进程序和反馈报告的可行性及实用性问题的评分。
将44次同行间相互访问的数据与46次非医生观察员访问的数据进行了比较。非医生观察员的访问明显更受赞赏。在一年随访的诊疗访问后,参与者报告说他们赞赏这次访问和反馈报告,并且更喜欢非医生观察员的反馈而非同行的反馈。参与者关于程序和反馈呈现的报告为改进访问程序提供了线索。
非医生观察员进行的诊疗访问和反馈比同事进行的访问和反馈更受赞赏。非医生观察员使用VIP进行的诊疗访问是一种评估实践管理的简单、易行且被广泛接受的方法。