Collecting data in general practice: need for standardisation

Newrick, D; Spencer, John; Jones, Karen

doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7022.33

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These indicators require collection of extra data, and some might argue that primary care teams cannot cope with yet more tasks. However, in the United Kingdom well over a million hours every month are already spent collecting data in primary care,37and yet there is little consensus on which data should be collected. Focusing data collection on meaningful indicators and abandoning it in less relevant areas could result in an overall reduction in workload.…”

Section: Requirements For Developing Evidence Based Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach

McColl

Roderick

Gabbay

et al. 1998

BMJ

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Requirements For Developing Evidence Based Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach

McColl

Roderick

Gabbay

et al. 1998

BMJ

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…8 26 27 The PRIMIS project will help to develop comparable data systems across primary care computers8;…”

Section: Problems That Need To Be Solvedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical governance in primary care: Knowledge and information for clinical governance

McColl¹

2000

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is in spite of many requests and attempts to standardise data recording in primary care. [15][16][17] No one has yet tested the feasibility of deriving information to produce indicators on which to assess standards from all the practices in a primary care group.…”

Section: Compare Performance Between Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 They did identify opportunities for improvement and variation across practices. However, the reliability of the indicators and the extent to which they identify the popu- Figure 3 Variation between practices in the uptake of interventions (% by indicator number): 2 = % with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) who take aspirin (n = 18 practices); 4 = % with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) who take aspirin (n = 10 practices); 5 = % who have had their BP recorded in the previous five years (n = 15 practices); 7 = % identified as hypertensive whose most recent systolic BP was <160 mm Hg (n = 12 practices); 8 = % identified as hypertensive whose most recent diastolic BP was <90 mm Hg (n = 12 practices); 9 = % identified as hypertensive who have had their BP recorded in the previous year (n = 12 practices); 10 = % with IHD who have had their BP recorded in the previous year (n = 18 practices); 11 = % with ischaemic stroke or TIA who have had their BP recorded in the previous year (n = 10 practices); 13 = % with diabetes mellitus whose most recent systolic BP was <160 mm Hg (n = 12 practices); 14 = % with diabetes mellitus whose most recent diastolic BP was <90 mm Hg (n = 12 practices); 15 lation of interest need further evaluation in primary care groups.…”

Section: Ability To Derive Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators

McColl

Roderick²,

Smith³

et al. 2000

Quality in Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-To test the feasibility of deriving comparative indicators in all the practices within a primary care group. Design-A retrospective audit using practice computer systems and random note review. Setting-A primary care group in southern England. Subjects-All 18 general practices in a primary care group. Main outcome measures-Twenty six evidence-based process indicators including aspirin therapy in high risk patients, detection and control of hypertension, smoking cessation advice, treatment of heart failure, raised cholesterol levels in those with established cardiovascular disease, and the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Feasibility was tested by examining whether it was possible to derive these indicators in all the practices; the problems and constraints incurred when collecting data; the variations in indicator values between practices in both their identification of diseases and in the uptake of various interventions; the possible reasons for these variations; and the cost of generating such indicators. Results-It was possible to derive eight indicators in all practices and in three practices all 26 indicators. The median number of indicators derived was 12 with two practices able to generate eight. There was considerable variation in the use of computers between practices and in the ability and ease of various practice computer systems to generate indicators. Practices varied greatly in the identification of diseases and in the uptake of eVective interventions. Variation in identification of ischaemic heart disease could not be explained by a higher prevalence in practices with a more deprived population. The cost of generating these indicators was £5300. Conclusion-Comparativeevidencebased indicators, used as part of clinical governance in primary care groups, could have the potential to turn evidence into everyday practice, to improve the quality of patient care, and to have an impact on the population's health. However, to derive such indicators and to be able to make meaningful comparisons primary care groups need greater conformity and compatibility of computer systems, improved computer skills for practice staV, and appropriate funding.

show abstract

Collecting data in general practice: need for standardisation

Cited by 7 publications

References 4 publications

Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach

Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach

Clinical governance in primary care: Knowledge and information for clinical governance

Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About