Campbell S M, Hann M, Hacker J, Burns C, Oliver D, Thapar A, Mead N, Safran D G, Roland M O
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL.
BMJ. 2001 Oct 6;323(7316):784-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7316.784.
To assess variation in the quality of care in general practice and identify factors associated with high quality care.
Observational study.
Stratified random sample of 60 general practices in six areas of England.
Quality of management of chronic disease (angina, asthma in adults, and type 2 diabetes) and preventive care (rates of uptake for immunisation and cervical smear), access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal care (general practice assessment survey). Multiple logistic regression with multilevel modelling was used to relate each of the outcome variables to practice size, routine booking interval for consultations, socioeconomic deprivation, and team climate.
Quality of clinical care varied substantially, and access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal care varied moderately. Scores for asthma, diabetes, and angina were 67%, 21%, and 17% higher in practices with 10 minute booking intervals for consultations compared with practices with five minute booking intervals. Diabetes care was better in larger practices and in practices where staff reported better team climate. Access to care was better in small practices. Preventive care was worse in practices located in socioeconomically deprived areas. Scores for satisfaction, continuity of care, and access to care were higher in practices where staff reported better team climate.
Longer consultation times are essential for providing high quality clinical care. Good teamworking is a key part of providing high quality care across a range of areas and may need specific support if quality of care is to be improved. Additional support is needed to provide preventive care to deprived populations. No single type of practice has a monopoly on high quality care: different types of practice may have different strengths.
评估全科医疗服务中的护理质量差异,并确定与高质量护理相关的因素。
观察性研究。
从英格兰六个地区的60家全科诊所中进行分层随机抽样。
慢性病(心绞痛、成人哮喘和2型糖尿病)的管理质量、预防保健(免疫接种和宫颈涂片检查的接受率)、就医便利性、护理连续性和人际关怀(全科医疗评估调查)。采用多水平建模的多重逻辑回归分析,将每个结果变量与诊所规模、常规预约咨询间隔时间、社会经济剥夺程度和团队氛围相关联。
临床护理质量差异很大,就医便利性、护理连续性和人际关怀存在中等程度的差异。与预约咨询间隔时间为5分钟的诊所相比,预约咨询间隔时间为10分钟的诊所中,哮喘、糖尿病和心绞痛的得分分别高出67%、21%和17%。大型诊所和工作人员报告团队氛围较好的诊所中,糖尿病护理情况更佳。小型诊所的就医便利性更好。社会经济贫困地区的诊所预防保健情况较差。工作人员报告团队氛围较好的诊所中,满意度、护理连续性和就医便利性得分更高。
更长的咨询时间对于提供高质量临床护理至关重要。良好的团队合作是在多个领域提供高质量护理的关键部分,如果要提高护理质量,可能需要特定的支持。需要额外的支持为贫困人群提供预防保健。没有单一类型的诊所能垄断高质量护理:不同类型的诊所可能各有优势。