General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has now for many years been recognised that patient evaluations should be undertaken as an integral part of the complex task of improving the quality of general practice care. Yet little is known about the general practitioners' (GPs') benefit from patient evaluations. Aim 1 was to study the impact on the GPs of a patient evaluation and subsequent feedback of results presented at a plenary session comprising a study guide for the results and group discussions. Aim 2 was to study possible facilitators and barriers to the implementations of the results raised by the patient evaluation process.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A patient evaluation survey of 597 voluntarily participating GPs was performed by means of the EUROPEP questionnaire. Evaluation results were fed back to the GPs as written reports at a single feedback meeting with group discussions of the results. Between 3 and 17 months after the feedback, the 597 GPs received a questionnaire with items addressing their experience with and perceived benefit from the evaluations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>79.4% of the GPs responded. 33% of the responding GPs reported that the patient evaluation had raised their attention to the patient perspective on the quality of general practice care. Job satisfaction had improved among 26%, and 21% had developed a more positive attitude to patient evaluations. 77% of the GPs reported having learnt from the evaluation. 54% had made changes to improve practice, 82% would recommend a patient evaluation to a colleague and 75% would do another patient evaluation if invited. 14% of the GPs had become less positive towards patient evaluations, and job satisfaction had decreased among 3%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found a significant impact on the GPs regarding satisfaction with the process and attitude towards patient evaluations, GPs' attention to the patients' perspective on care quality and their job satisfaction. Being benchmarked against the average seemed to raise barriers to the concept of patient evaluations and difficulties interpreting the results may have formed a barrier to their implementation which was partly overcome by adding qualitative data to the quantitative results. The GPs' significant willingness to share and discuss the results with others may have served as a facilitator.</p

Patient characteristics associated with differences in patients' evaluation of their general practitioner

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knowledge of the extent to which patient characteristics are systematically associated with variation in patient evaluations will enable us to adjust for differences between practice populations and thereby compare GPs. Whether this is appropriate depends on the purpose for which the patient evaluation was conducted. Associations between evaluations and patient characteristics may reflect gaps in the quality of care or may be due to inherent characteristics of the patients. This study aimed to determine such associations in a setting with a comprehensive list system and gate-keeping.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A nationwide Danish patient evaluation survey among voluntarily participating GPs using the EUROPEP questionnaire, which produced 28,260 patient evaluations (response rate 77.3%) of 365 GPs. In our analyses we compared the prevalence of positive evaluations in groups of patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found a positive GP assessment to be strongly associated with increasing patient age and increasing frequency of attendance. Patients reporting a chronic condition were more positive, whereas a low self-rated health was strongly associated with less positive scores also after adjustment. The association between patient gender and assessment was weak and inconsistent and depended on the focus. We found no association either with the patients' educational level or with the duration of listing with the GP even after adjusting for patient characteristics.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Adjustment for patient differences may produce a more fair comparison between GPs, but may also blur the assessment of GPs' ability to meet the needs of the populations actually served. On the other hand, adjusted results will enable us to describe the significance of specific patient characteristics to patients' experience of care.</p

High workload and job stress are associated with lower practice performance in general practice: an observational study in 239 general practices in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 80493.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The impact of high physician workload and job stress on quality and outcomes of healthcare delivery is not clear. Our study explored whether high workload and job stress were associated with lower performance in general practices in the Netherlands. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from 239 general practices, collected in practice visits between 2003 to 2006 in the Netherlands using a comprehensive set of measures of practice management. Data were collected by a practice visitor, a trained non-physician observer using patients questionnaires, doctors and staff. For this study we selected five measures of practice performance as outcomes and six measures of GP workload and job stress as predictors. A total of 79 indicators were used out of the 303 available indicators. Random coefficient regression models were applied to examine associations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Workload and job stress are associated with practice performance.Workload: Working more hours as a GP was associated with more positive patient experiences of accessibility and availability (b = 0.16). After list size adjustment, practices with more GP-time per patient scored higher on GP care (b = 0.45). When GPs provided more than 20 hours per week per 1000 patients, patients scored over 80% on the Europep questionnaire for quality of GP care.Job stress: High GP job stress was associated with lower accessibility and availability (b = 0.21) and insufficient practice management (b = 0.25). Higher GP commitment and more satisfaction with the job was associated with more prevention and disease management (b = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Providing more time in the practice, and more time per patient and experiencing less job stress are all associated with perceptions by patients of better care and better practice performance. Workload and job stress should be assessed by using list size adjusted data in order to realise better quality of care. Organisational development using this kind of data feedback could benefit both patients and GP