Lau Phyllis, Ryan Samantha, Alrubayi Baneen, Bannister Lucy, Pakkiam Dylan, Abbott Penelope, Tannous Kathy, Trankle Steven, Peters Kath, Page Andrew, Cochrane Natalie, Usherwood Tim, Reath Jennifer
School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
PLoS One. 2025 Sep 5;20(9):e0327508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327508. eCollection 2025.
This study aimed to achieve wider consensus on the relevance and feasibility of the Quality Equity and Systems Transformation in Primary Health Care (QUEST-PHC) indicators and measures developed for Australian general practice.
Partnering with eight Primary Health Networks (PHNs) across four states, we conducted a Delphi consensus study consisting of three rounds of online survey with general practice experts including general practitioners, practice nurses and PHN staff members. Participants rated each measure for relevance and feasibility, and provided input into the implementation of a quality indicator tool. Each measure required ≥70% agreement in both relevance and feasibility to achieve consensus. Aggregated ratings were statistically analysed for response rates, means, standard deviations, ranges, and level of agreement. Sub-group analyses were conducted to compare the aggregated ratings between practice and PHN staff, and between clinicians and non-clinicians in the practice staff. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically using an inductive approach.
Ninety-four participants participated in Round 1 survey; 61 completed all three rounds. All measures reached the consensus threshold for both relevance and feasibility; 19 were slightly less feasible when compared with other measures. Although in general the participants scored similarly and their agreements were statistically significant, subgroup analyses showed that PHN staff scored feasibility of some measures slightly lower than practice staff (e.g., patients screened for adverse childhood experiences), and clinicians also scored the feasibility of some measures slightly lower than non-clinicians (e.g., patient perceptions of preventative health discussion on unsafe sexual practices).
The QUEST PHC suite of indicators and measures have reached consensus in this Delphi study. Whilst the feasibility of some measures still needs considerations, the QUEST PHC suite provides a framework for defining and measuring high-quality general practice to enable reporting to inform quality improvement and alternative funding models for Australian general practice.
本研究旨在就为澳大利亚全科医疗制定的初级卫生保健质量公平与系统转型(QUEST-PHC)指标及措施的相关性和可行性达成更广泛的共识。
我们与四个州的八个初级卫生保健网络(PHN)合作,开展了一项德尔菲共识研究,该研究包括三轮在线调查,参与对象为全科医疗专家,包括全科医生、执业护士和PHN工作人员。参与者对每项措施的相关性和可行性进行评分,并就质量指标工具的实施提供意见。每项措施在相关性和可行性方面都需要≥70%的一致性才能达成共识。对汇总评分进行统计分析,包括回复率、均值、标准差、范围和一致性水平。进行亚组分析,以比较执业人员和PHN工作人员之间以及执业人员中临床医生和非临床医生之间的汇总评分。采用归纳法对定性回复进行主题分析。
94名参与者参加了第一轮调查;61人完成了所有三轮调查。所有措施在相关性和可行性方面均达到了共识阈值;与其他措施相比,有19项措施的可行性略低。虽然总体而言参与者的评分相似且他们的一致性具有统计学意义,但亚组分析表明,PHN工作人员对某些措施可行性的评分略低于执业人员(例如,筛查童年不良经历的患者),临床医生对某些措施可行性的评分也略低于非临床医生(例如,患者对关于不安全性行为的预防性健康讨论的看法)。
QUEST PHC指标和措施套件在本德尔菲研究中已达成共识。虽然某些措施的可行性仍需考虑,但QUEST PHC套件提供了一个定义和衡量高质量全科医疗的框架,以便进行报告,为澳大利亚全科医疗的质量改进和替代资金模式提供信息。