Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care : a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators. METHODS: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice : An observational study

BACKGROUND: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. RESULTS: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour

Impact of the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination on pneumonia in The Gambia: population-based surveillance and case-control studies.

BACKGROUND: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) are used in many low-income countries but their impact on the incidence of pneumonia is unclear. The Gambia introduced PCV7 in August, 2009, and PCV13 in May, 2011. We aimed to measure the impact of the introduction of these vaccines on pneumonia incidence. METHODS: We did population-based surveillance and case-control studies. The primary endpoint was WHO-defined radiological pneumonia with pulmonary consolidation. Population-based surveillance was for suspected pneumonia in children aged 2-59 months (minimum age 3 months in the case-control study) between May 12, 2008, and Dec 31, 2015. Surveillance for the impact study was limited to the Basse Health and Demographic Surveillance System (BHDSS), whereas surveillance for the case-control study included both the BHDSS and Fuladu West Health and Demographic Surveillance System. Nurses screened all outpatients and inpatients at all health facilities in the surveillance area using standardised criteria for referral to clinicians in Basse and Bansang. These clinicians recorded clinical findings and applied standardised criteria to identify patients with suspected pneumonia. We compared the incidence of pneumonia during the baseline period (May 12, 2008, to May 11, 2010) and the PCV13 period (Jan 1, 2014, to Dec 31, 2015). We also investigated the effectiveness of PCV13 using case-control methods between Sept 12, 2011, and Sept 31, 2014. Controls were aged 90 days or older, and were eligible to have received at least one dose of PCV13; cases had the same eligibility criteria with the addition of having WHO-defined radiological pneumonia. FINDINGS: We investigated 18 833 children with clinical pneumonia and identified 2156 cases of radiological pneumonia. Among children aged 2-11 months, the incidence of radiological pneumonia fell from 21·0 cases per 1000 person-years in the baseline period to 16·2 cases per 1000 person-years (23% decline, 95% CI 7-36) in 2014-15. In the 12-23 month age group, radiological pneumonia decreased from 15·3 to 10·9 cases per 1000 person-years (29% decline, 12-42). In children aged 2-4 years, incidence fell from 5·2 to 4·1 cases per 1000 person-years (22% decline, 1-39). Incidence of all clinical pneumonia increased by 4% (-1 to 8), but hospitalised cases declined by 8% (3-13). Pneumococcal pneumonia declined from 2·9 to 1·2 cases per 1000 person-years (58% decline, 22-77) in children aged 2-11 months and from 2·6 to 0·7 cases per 1000 person-years (75% decline, 47-88) in children aged 12-23 months. Hypoxic pneumonia fell from 13·1 to 5·7 cases per 1000 person-years (57% decline, 42-67) in children aged 2-11 months and from 6·8 to 1·9 cases per 1000 person-years (72% decline, 58-82) in children aged 12-23 months. In the case-control study, the best estimate of the effectiveness of three doses of PCV13 against radiological pneumonia was an adjusted odds ratio of 0·57 (0·30-1·08) in children aged 3-11 months and vaccine effectiveness increased with greater numbers of doses (p=0·026). The analysis in children aged 12 months and older was underpowered because there were few unvaccinated cases and controls. INTERPRETATION: The introduction of PCV in The Gambia was associated with a moderate impact on the incidence of radiological pneumonia, a small reduction in cases of hospitalised pneumonia, and substantial reductions of pneumococcal and hypoxic pneumonia in young children. Low-income countries that introduce PCV13 with reasonable coverage can expect modest reductions in hospitalised cases of pneumonia and a marked impact on the incidence of severe childhood pneumonia. FUNDING: GAVI's Pneumococcal vaccines Accelerated Development and Introduction Plan, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UK Medical Research Council

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing quality-indicator prioritisation with and without public involvement. In preparation for the trial, we developed a 'menu' of quality indicators, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participants (public representatives, clinicians, and managers) will be recruited from six participating sites. In intervention sites, public representatives will be involved through direct participation (public representatives, clinicians, and managers will deliberate together to agree on quality-indicator choice and use) and consultation (individual public recommendations for improvement will be collected and presented to decision makers). In control sites, only clinicians and managers will take part in the prioritisation process. Data on quality-indicator choice and intended use will be collected. Our primary outcome will compare quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities between intervention and control groups. A process evaluation based on direct observation, videorecording, and participants' assessment will be conducted to help explain the study's results. The marginal cost of public involvement will also be assessed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We identified 801 quality indicators that met our inclusion criteria. An expert panel agreed on a final set of 37 items containing validated quality indicators relevant for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care. We pilot tested our public-involvement intervention with 27 participants (11 public representatives and 16 clinicians and managers) and our study instruments with an additional 21 participants, which demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and generated important insights and adaptations to engage public representatives more effectively. To our knowledge, this study is the first trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation, and its results could foster more effective upstream engagement of patients and the public in clinical practice improvement.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2496">NTR2496</a> (Netherlands National Trial Register, <url>http://www.trialregister.nl</url>).</p

Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process

Background Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. Methods We reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England. Results Out of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2-9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection. Conclusions We have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care

'It must be right, I saw it on TV!': An observational study of third stage birth practices in popular television programmes.

ObjectivesTo examine modern media depictions of the third stage of birth in a selection of UK television representations.DesignObservational study of a sample of televised fictional and real births, audited against current National Institute of Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.SettingUK television channels BBC (Call The Midwife and This Is Going To Hurt) and Channel 4 (One Born Every Minute).Participants87 births from 48 episodes, sampled from the three shows.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of births where the cord was clamped at more than 1 min after birth. Secondary outcomes included place and type of birth, measures of dignity and paternal involvement.ResultsOverall, the timing of cord clamping was clearly shown in 25/87 (29%) of births, of which only 4/25 (16%) occurred at more than 1 min in screen time. The place of birth and caesarean section (CS) rate changed according to the series perspective and era; graphic explicit images were shown, but these related to CS detail.ConclusionsUK television shows have accurately depicted changes in place, culture and type of birth over the last century. They provide the public with a view of new rituals but an inaccurate picture of good quality care. Early cord clamping was shown in most births, even those set after 2014. No programme informed viewers about the safety aspects. When showing outdated practices, broadcasters have a public health duty to inform viewers that this is no longer recommended

Patient Safety Collaborative Manual Study

Australian general practice has a key role in how the health system ensures safe and high quality care, particularly for individuals living with complex illnesses. On average, general practice provides 345,000 patient encounters and writes over 287,000 prescriptions per day. There will be a small level of adverse events associated with these consultations and prescriptions; analysis of such adverse events shows that at least half are thought to be preventable. Understanding, recording and analysing these adverse events has not proven to be easy in general practice, which is why this Manual is so valuable. Unlike the hospital setting, the structure of general practice is such that finding dedicated resources to devote solely to safety and quality initiatives is impractical. This Manual is practical, instructive and helpful. It is not a weighty tome, which makes it attractive, but it is rich in ideas, tips and suggestions. Reference is made to the Australian Safety and Quality Framework for Health Care, which was endorsed by Health Ministers in 2010. The vision is for safe and high quality care for all Australians, supported by three core principles. These principles are that care is consumer centred, driven by information and organised for safety. This Manual is particularly focused on two of three core principles, through its ‘Key Concepts’ approach. The first concept, engaging the team, is the key to being organised for safety. The approach to deriving information from patient encounters can only be achieved by a practice that is organised for safety. The information that can be gained by adopting the approaches outlined in this Manual will be invaluable. The focus on accurate patient health summaries, on clinical audit, on automated trigger tools, event logs, significant event analysis and medication reviews when considered by experienced GPs must enhance patient safety and the quality of care. It is most heartening to read this Manual and to contemplate the benefits that will accrue to consumers of health care, wherever it is applied.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy