The patient's "story": an examination of patient-reported safety incidents in general practice

Assessing care quality in general practice: a qualitative study of GPs in Ireland

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that each year in Ireland, approximately 29 million consultations occur in general practice with a patient satisfaction level of 90%. To date, research has been lacking on how GPs assess the quality of care.

AIM

To examine how GPs assess care quality during routine practice with respect to the following pillars of quality improvement: effectiveness, safety, timeliness, equity, efficiency, sustainability, and person-centredness.

DESIGN & SETTING

Qualitative study of GPs in Ireland.

METHOD

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 GPs who were recruited via a snowball sampling strategy. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed. Quality 'assessment points' were identified and themes were synthesised to produce a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Five female and five male GPs practising in a variety of settings were interviewed. The age range was 33-68 years. In total, 122 assessment points emerged from the data and were collated into the following eight themes: the GP as a professional person factors; the patient and coproduction factors; care team factors; direct care factors; outcome factors; practice environment and organisation factors; external environment factors; and improvement approach factors.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to examine how GPs in Ireland assess care quality as a holistic construct during daily care. The qualitative approach applied yielded rich and diverse insights into the many assessment points that GPs use to inform their approach and actions as clinicians, managers, collaborators, and leaders to maximise patient care. The theory produced is likely useful and applicable for practising GPs, healthcare administration, policymakers, and funders in planning and executing changes for quality improvement.

Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Training through Simulation Using the Crisis Resource Management Tool for Primary Care Professionals

This was a prospective observational study based on clinical simulation courses taught in 2017 at the IDEhA Simulation Center of Alcorcón Foundation University Hospital. Two courses in metabolic emergencies (MEs) and respiratory emergencies (REs) were offered to primary care physicians all over Spain. The main objective was to teach nontechnical skills (crisis resource management). Using a modified five-level Kirkpatrick-Phillips education evaluation model, level I (reaction, K1), level II (learning, K2) and level III (behavioral change, K3) changes were evaluated through surveys at the end of the courses and one year later. Thirty courses were held (15 ME courses and 15 RE courses) with 283 primary care physicians. The overall satisfaction (K1) was high: ME courses, 9.5/10; RE courses, 9.6/10. More than 80% of the participants rated the organization, resources, content, debriefing and scenarios as excellent, with no significant differences between the two courses. After one year (156 responses), the respondents for both courses reported that they would repeat the training annually (K2), encourage debriefing with colleagues (K3) and have modified some aspects of their workplace (K3), citing improvements in procedures and in the organization of the health team as the most important. After the ME course, few participants, i.e., 5 (6%), reported providing improved care to patients; after the RE course, 15 (19%) participants reported providing improved care; the difference between groups was significant (p < 0.05). Compared with the ME course, the RE course imparted greater knowledge about patient safety (K2) (38 (49%) vs. 24 (31%) (p < 0.05)) and more useful tools for daily clinical practice (K3) (67% vs. 56.4%) and resulted in participants paying more attention to personal performance and to colleagues when working as a team (K2) (64% vs. 50%). Clinical simulation courses are highly valued and potentially effective for training primary care physicians in patient safety and CRM tools. Future studies with objective measures of long-term impact, behavior in the workplace (K3) and benefits to patients (K4) are needed. Based on the results of our study, the areas that are important are those aimed at improving procedures and the organization of health teams.