Assessing methods for measurement of clinical outcomes and quality of care in primary care practices
Open Access
- 23 July 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 12 (1), 214
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-214
Abstract
To evaluate the appropriateness of potential data sources for the population of performance indicators for primary care (PC) practices. This project was a cross sectional study of 7 multidisciplinary primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Practices were recruited and 5-7 physicians per practice agreed to participate in the study. Patients of participating physicians (20-30) were recruited sequentially as they presented to attend a visit. Data collection included patient, provider and practice surveys, chart abstraction and linkage to administrative data sets. Matched pairs analysis was used to examine the differences in the observed results for each indicator obtained using multiple data sources. Seven teams, 41 physicians, 94 associated staff and 998 patients were recruited. The survey response rate was 81% for patients, 93% for physicians and 83% for associated staff. Chart audits were successfully completed on all but 1 patient and linkage to administrative data was successful for all subjects. There were significant differences noted between the data collection methods for many measures. No single method of data collection was best for all outcomes. For most measures of technical quality of care chart audit was the most accurate method of data collection. Patient surveys were more accurate for immunizations, chronic disease advice/information dispensed, some general health promotion items and possibly for medication use. Administrative data appears useful for indicators including chronic disease diagnosis and osteoporosis/ breast screening. Multiple data collection methods are required for a comprehensive assessment of performance in primary care practices. The choice of which methods are best for any one particular study or quality improvement initiative requires careful consideration of the biases that each method might introduce into the results. In this study, both patients and providers were willing to participate in and consent to, the collection and linkage of information from multiple sources that would be required for such assessments.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Performance feedback: An exploratory study to examine the acceptability and impact for interdisciplinary primary care teamsBMC Family Practice, 2011
- Developing a Performance Measurement Framework and Indicators for Community Health Service Facilities in Urban ChinaBMC Family Practice, 2010
- Pay for Performance in Primary Care in England and California: Comparison of Unintended ConsequencesAnnals of Family Medicine, 2009
- Clinical Concerns About Clinical Performance MeasurementAnnals of Family Medicine, 2007
- Can the Quality of Care in Family Practice Be Measured Using Administrative Data?Health Services Research, 2006
- Variation in the Ecology of Medical CareAnnals of Family Medicine, 2003
- The Contribution of Primary Care Systems to Health Outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Countries, 1970–1998Health Services Research, 2003
- Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfallsQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2003
- Is primary care essential?The Lancet, 1994
- Agreement Among Physician Assessment Methods Searching for the Truth Among Fallible MethodsMedical Care, 1988