Measuring patients' assessments of primary care quality: the use of self-report questionnaires

GP Practices as a One-Stop Shop: How Do Patients Perceive the Quality of Care? A Cross-Sectional Study in Thirty-Four Countries

OBJECTIVE

To contribute to the current knowledge on how a broad range of services offered by general practitioners (GPs) may contribute to the patient perceived quality and, hence, the potential benefits of primary care.

STUDY SETTING

Between 2011 and 2013, primary care data were collected among GPs and their patients in 31 European countries, plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In these countries, GPs are the main providers of primary care, mostly specialized in family medicine and working in the ambulatory setting.

STUDY DESIGN

In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were completed by 7,183 GPs and 61,931 visiting patients. Moreover, 7,270 patients answered questions about what they find important (their values). In the analyses of patient experiences, we adjusted for patients' values in each country to measure patient perceived quality. Perceived quality was measured regarding five areas: accessibility and continuity of care, doctor-patient communication, patient involvement in decision making, and comprehensiveness of care. The range of GP services was measured in relation to four areas: (1) to what extent they are the first contact to the health care system for patients in need of care, (2) their involvement in treatment and follow-up of acute and chronic conditions, in other words treatment of diseases, (3) their involvement in minor technical procedures, and (4) their involvement in preventive treatments.

EXTRACTION METHODS

Data of the patients were linked to the data of the GPs. Multilevel modeling was used to construct scale scores for the experiences of patients in the five areas of quality and the range of services of GPs. In these four-level models, items were nested within patients, nested in GP practices, nested in countries. The relationship between the range of services and the experiences of patients was analyzed in three-level multilevel models, also taking into account the values of patients.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In countries where GPs offer a broader range of services patients perceive better accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care, and more involvement in decision making. No associations were found between the range of services and the patient perceived communication with their GP. The range of GP services mostly explained the variation between countries in the areas of patient perceived accessibility and continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that in countries where GP practices serve as a "one-stop shop," patients perceive better quality of care, especially in the areas of accessibility and continuity of care. Therefore, primary care in a country is expected to benefit from investments in a broader range of services of GPs or other primary care physicians.

Facility type and primary care performance in sub-district health promotion hospitals in Northern Thailand

BACKGROUND

Poor and middle-income Thai people rely heavily on primary care health services. These are staffed by a range of professionals. However, it is unknown whether the performance of primary care varies according to the staffing and organization of local service delivery units. Tambon (sub-district) health promotion hospitals (THPHs) were introduced in 2009 to upgrade the services offered by the previous health centres, but were faced with continuing shortages of doctors and nurses. The Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) designated three categories of THPH, defined according to whether they were regularly staffed by a medical practitioner, a qualified nurse or non-clinical public health officers. This study aimed to compare the performance of primary care offered by the three different types of primary care facilities in one public health region of Northern Thailand (Public Health Region 2).

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 2013. Data were collected on accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness, co-ordination and community orientation of care from 825 patients attending 23 primary care facilities. These were selected to include the three officially-designated types of Tambon (sub-district) health promotion hospitals (THPHs) led by medical, nursing or public health personnel. Survey scores were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

THPHs staffed only by public health officers achieved the highest performance score (Mean = 85.14, SD. = 7.30), followed by THPHs staffed by qualified nurses (Mean = 82.86, SD. = 7.06). THPHs staffed by a doctor on rotation returned the lowest scores (Mean = 81.63, SD. = 7.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in overall scores resulted mainly from differences in reported accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care, rather than staff skill-mix per se. Policy on quality improvement should therefore focus on improving performance in these areas.

The impact of primary care: a focused review

Primary care serves as the cornerstone in a strong healthcare system. However, it has long been overlooked in the United States (USA), and an imbalance between specialty and primary care exists. The objective of this focused review paper is to identify research evidence on the value of primary care both in the USA and internationally, focusing on the importance of effective primary care services in delivering quality healthcare, improving health outcomes, and reducing disparities. Literature searches were performed in PubMed as well as "snowballing" based on the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. The areas reviewed included primary care definitions, primary care measurement, primary care practice, primary care and health, primary care and quality, primary care and cost, primary care and equity, primary care and health centers, and primary care and healthcare reform. In both developed and developing countries, primary care has been demonstrated to be associated with enhanced access to healthcare services, better health outcomes, and a decrease in hospitalization and use of emergency department visits. Primary care can also help counteract the negative impact of poor economic conditions on health.

Can the feedback of patient assessments, brief training, or their combination, improve the interpersonal skills of primary care physicians? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Improving quality of primary care is a key focus of international health policy. Current quality improvement efforts place a large focus on technical, clinical aspects of quality, but a comprehensive approach to quality improvement should also include interpersonal care. Two methods of improving the quality of interpersonal care in primary care have been proposed. One involves the feedback of patient assessments of interpersonal care to physicians, and the other involves brief training and education programmes. This study therefore reviewed the efficacy of (i) feedback of real patient assessments of interpersonal care skills, (ii) brief training focused on the improvement of interpersonal care (iii) interventions combining both (i) and (ii)

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Three electronic databases were searched (CENTRAL, Medline and Embase) and augmented by searches of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. The quality of studies was appraised and results summarised in narrative form.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included (two patient based feedback studies and seven brief training studies). Of the two feedback studies, one reported a significant positive effect. Only one training study reported a significant positive effect.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence concerning the effects of patient based feedback. There is reasonable evidence that brief training as currently delivered is not effective, although the evidence is not definitive, due to the small number of trials and the variation in the training methods and goals. The lack of effectiveness of these methods may reflect a number of issues, such as differences in the effectiveness of the interventions in experienced practitioners and those in training, the lack of theory linking feedback to behaviour change, failure to provide sufficient training or to use a comprehensive range of behaviour change techniques. Further research into both feedback and brief training interventions is required before these interventions are routinely introduced to improve patient satisfaction with interpersonal care in primary care. The interventions to be tested in future research should consider using insights from the wider literature on communication outside primary care, might benefit from a clearer theoretical basis, and should examine the use of combined brief training and feedback.

The General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ) - development and psychometric characteristics

BACKGROUND

Continual quality improvement in primary care is an international priority. In the United Kingdom, the major initiative for improving quality of care is the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) of the 2004 GP contract. Although the primary focus of the QoF is on clinical care, it is acknowledged that a comprehensive assessment of quality also requires valid and reliable measurement of the patient perspective, so financial incentives are included in the contract for general practices to survey patients' views. One questionnaire specified for use in the QoF is the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ). This paper describes the development of the GPAQ (with post-consultation and postal versions) and presents a preliminary examination of the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.

METHODS

Description of scale development and preliminary analysis of psychometric characteristics (internal reliability, factor structure), based on a large dataset of routinely collected GPAQ surveys (n = 190,038 responses to the consultation version of GPAQ and 20,309 responses to the postal version) from practices in the United Kingdom during the 2005-6 contract year.

RESULTS

Respondents tend to report generally favourable ratings. Responses were particularly skewed on the GP communication scale, though no more so than for other questionnaires in current use in the UK for which data were available. Factor analysis identified 2 factors that clearly relate to core concepts in primary care quality ('access' and 'interpersonal care') that were common to both version of the GPAQ. The other factors related to 'enablement' in the post-consultation version and 'nursing care' in the postal version.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary evaluation indicates that the scales of the GPAQ are internally reliable and that the items demonstrate an interpretable factor structure. Issues concerning the distributions of GPAQ responses are discussed. Potential further developments of the item content for the GPAQ are also outlined.