Irwin Ryan, Stokes Tim, Marshall Tom
1Primary Care Clinical Sciences,School of Health and Population Sciences,College of Medical and Dental Sciences,University of Birmingham,Edgbaston,Birmingham,UK.
2Elaine Gurr Professor of General Practice,Department of General Practice and Rural Health,University of Otago,Dunedin,New Zealand.
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015 Nov;16(6):556-77. doi: 10.1017/S1463423615000274. Epub 2015 May 25.
To present an overview of effective interventions for quality improvement in primary care at the practice level utilising existing systematic reviews.
Quality improvement in primary care involves a range of approaches from the system-level to patient-level improvement. One key setting in which quality improvement needs to occur is at the level of the basic unit of primary care--the individual general practice. Therefore, there is a need for practitioners to have access to an overview of the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions available in this setting.
A tertiary evidence synthesis was conducted (a review of systematic reviews). A systematic approach was used to identify and summarise published literature relevant to understanding primary-care quality improvement at the practice level. Quality assessment was via the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for systematic reviews, with data extraction identifying evidence of effect for the examined interventions.
Included reviews had to be relevant to quality improvement at the practice level and relevant to the UK primary-care context. Reviews were excluded if describing system-level interventions.
A range of measures across care structure, process and outcomes were defined and interpreted across the quality improvement interventions.
Audit and feedback, computerised advice, point-of-care reminders, practice facilitation, educational outreach and processes for patient review and follow-up all demonstrated evidence of a quality improvement effect. Evidence of an improvement effect was higher where baseline performance was low and was particularly demonstrated across process measures and measures related to prescribing. Evidence was not sufficient to suggest that multifaceted approaches were more effective than single interventions.
Evidence exists for a range of quality improvement interventions at the primary-care practice level. More research is required to determine the use and impact of quality improvement interventions using theoretical frameworks and cost-effectiveness analysis.
利用现有的系统评价,概述基层医疗实践层面提高质量的有效干预措施。
基层医疗质量改进涉及从系统层面到患者层面改进的一系列方法。需要进行质量改进的一个关键场所是基层医疗的基本单位——个体全科诊所层面。因此,从业者需要了解该场所可用的质量改进干预措施的有效性概况。
进行了三级证据综合(对系统评价的综述)。采用系统方法识别和总结与理解基层医疗实践层面质量改进相关的已发表文献。通过系统评价的批判性评估技能计划工具进行质量评估,数据提取确定所审查干预措施的效果证据。
纳入的综述必须与实践层面的质量改进相关且与英国基层医疗背景相关。如果描述的是系统层面的干预措施,则排除该综述。
在质量改进干预措施中定义并解释了一系列涵盖护理结构、过程和结果的指标。
审核与反馈、计算机化建议、即时提醒、实践促进、教育推广以及患者复查和随访流程均显示出质量改进效果的证据。基线表现较低时,改进效果的证据更强,尤其在过程指标和与处方相关的指标中表现明显。证据不足以表明多方面方法比单一干预措施更有效。
基层医疗实践层面存在一系列质量改进干预措施的证据。需要更多研究来确定使用理论框架和成本效益分析的质量改进干预措施的用途和影响。