van den Heuvel Henricus, Mand Peter, Heim Susanne, Hummers-Pradier Eva
Institute of General Practice, Hanover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Qual Prim Care. 2010;18(2):85-92.
The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has had a major impact on chronic care provision in British general practice. Various countries are looking at whether a similar initiative could be used in their primary care systems. An extensive quality indicator system like the QOF does not exist in German general practice.
To describe and explore the views of German general practitioners (GPs) on the clinical indicators of the QOF.
Qualitative study based on focus group discussions and a framework approach for data analysis. Fifty-four German GPs were involved in seven focus groups in German primary care practices.
German GPs expressed mixed views regarding the validity of the QOF clinical indicators to measure the quality of primary care. Most thought that these indicators covered areas that were relevant for German general practice and which were only partially covered by German quality initiatives. Participants had mixed opinions regarding linking pay and performance. Many thought that in deprived areas it would be difficult to achieve targets. Exception reporting would make achieving these targets easier, however, some believed it could lead to manipulation of figures. Many GPs saw QOF clinical indicators as a helpful structure, yet feared that introducing something similar would increase the administrative workload and be a threat to patient-centred care. Many participants were anxious that a QOF-like system could be influenced by sickness funds or the pharmaceutical industry. A few feared data protection problems if such a system were to be implemented. Several GPs expressed concerns on who would set and control such quality initiatives, feared for their autonomy and expected that in the future similar systems would be imposed upon them.
Participating German GPs had various concerns regarding the QOF clinical indicators and the idea of implementing a system like the QOF in German primary care. These concerns were mainly related to the validity of the indicators, the link between pay and performance, structured care versus patient centredness and the fear of external influences.
质量与结果框架(QOF)对英国全科医疗中的慢性病护理提供产生了重大影响。各国正在审视类似举措是否可应用于其初级医疗体系。德国全科医疗中不存在像QOF这样广泛的质量指标体系。
描述并探究德国全科医生(GP)对QOF临床指标的看法。
基于焦点小组讨论和数据分析框架方法的定性研究。54名德国全科医生参与了德国初级医疗诊所的7个焦点小组。
德国全科医生对QOF临床指标用于衡量初级医疗质量的有效性看法不一。大多数人认为这些指标涵盖了与德国全科医疗相关的领域,而这些领域在德国质量举措中仅部分涉及。参与者对薪酬与绩效挂钩的看法不一。许多人认为在贫困地区难以实现目标。异常报告将使实现这些目标更容易,然而,一些人认为这可能导致数据操纵。许多全科医生认为QOF临床指标是一个有用的框架,但担心引入类似的东西会增加行政工作量,并对以患者为中心的护理构成威胁。许多参与者担心类似QOF的系统可能受到疾病基金或制药行业的影响。少数人担心如果实施这样的系统会出现数据保护问题。一些全科医生对谁将设定和控制此类质量举措表示担忧,担心他们的自主权,并预计未来类似系统会强加于他们。
参与研究的德国全科医生对QOF临床指标以及在德国初级医疗中实施类似QOF系统的想法存在各种担忧。这些担忧主要与指标的有效性、薪酬与绩效的联系、结构化护理与以患者为中心的矛盾以及对外部影响的恐惧有关。