Dataset Information

Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The aim of this study was to identify key policy objectives by investigating the perception of important stakeholders and affected professionals concerning relevance and feasibility of a successful primary care (PC) reform.

Background

Since 2013, the Austrian PC system has been undergoing a reform process to establish multiprofessional primary care units. The reforms have various defined objectives and lack clear priorities.

Methods

After the definition and consensus-based selection of 12 policy objectives, a cross-sectional online survey on their relevance and feasibility was distributed via email and social media to PC and public health networks. The survey was conducted in the period from January to February 2020. Results were analyzed descriptively, and further, Pearson Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact Test was performed for group comparison regarding respondents' characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Findings

In total, 169 questionnaires were completed. A total of 46.3% of the responders had more than 20 years of professional experience (female: 60.5%). A mandatory internship in general practice, vocational training for general practice, and a modern remuneration system were the three top-rated policy objectives regarding relevance. A mandatory internship in general practice, specialization in general practice, and coding of services and diagnosis were assessed as the most feasible objectives. The group comparisons regarding working field, years of professional experience, age, and sex did not show any meaningful results in the evaluation of relevance and feasibility.

Discussion

In the view of the study participants, easily obtainable objectives include adapting the duration and setting of internships for medical students, as well as mandatory vocational training for GP trainees. Further efforts are necessary to achieve complex objectives such as the adoption of a modern remuneration scheme and a comprehensive quality assurance program. Building capacity and creating team-oriented environments are also important aspects of a successful PC reform.

SUBMITTER: Burgmann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10466205 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Burgmann Sarah S Paier-Abuzahra Muna M Sprenger Martin M Avian Alexander A Siebenhofer Andrea A

Primary health care research & development 20230814

<h4>Aim</h4>The aim of this study was to identify key policy objectives by investigating the perception of important stakeholders and affected professionals concerning relevance and feasibility of a successful primary care (PC) reform.<h4>Background</h4>Since 2013, the Austrian PC system has been undergoing a reform process to establish multiprofessional primary care units. The reforms have various defined objectives and lack clear priorities.<h4>Methods</h4>After the definition and consensus-ba ...[more]

PMID: 37577950

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEnglish general practice is suffering a workforce crisis, with general practitioners retiring early and trainees reluctant to enter the profession. To address this, additional funding has been offered, but only through participation in collaborations known as primary care networks (PCNs). This study explored national policy objectives underpinning PCNs and the mechanisms expected to help achieve these, from the perspective of those driving the policy.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews and policy document analysis.Setting and participantsNational-level policy maker and stakeholder interviewees (n=16). Policy document analysis of the Network Contract Direct Enhanced Service draft service specifications.AnalysisInterviews were transcribed, coded and organised thematically according to policy objectives and mechanisms. Thematic data were organised into a matrix so prominent elements can be identified and emphasised accordingly. Themes were considered alongside objectives embedded in PCN draft service delivery requirements.ResultsThree themes of policy objectives and associated mechanisms were identified: (1) supporting general practice, (2) place-based interorganisational collaboration and (3) primary care 'voice'. Interviewees emphasised and sequenced themes differently, suggesting meeting objectives for one was necessary to realise another. Interviewees most closely linked to primary care emphasised the importance of theme 1. The objectives embedded in draft service delivery requirements primarily emphasised theme 2.ConclusionsThese policy objectives are not mutually exclusive but may imply different approaches to prioritising investment or necessitate more explicit temporal sequencing, with the stabilisation of a struggling primary care sector probably needing to occur before meaningful engagement with other community service providers can be achieved or a 'collective voice' is agreed. Multiple objectives create space for stakeholders to feel dissatisfied when implementation details do not match expectations, as the negative reaction to draft service delivery requirements illustrates. Our study offers policy makers suggestions about how confidence in the policy might be restored by crafting delivery requirements so all groups see opportunities to meet favoured objectives.

Project description:BackgroundThe performance of Primary Care Trusts in England is assessed and published using a number of different performance indicators. Our study has two broad purposes. Firstly, to find out whether pairs of indicators that purport to measure similar aspects of quality are correlated (as would be expected if they are both valid measures of the same construct). Secondly, we wanted to find out whether broad (global) indicators correlated with any particular features of Primary Care Trusts, such as expenditure per capita.MethodsCross sectional quantitative analysis using data from six 2004/05 PCT performance indicators for 303 English Primary Care Trusts from four sources in the public domain: Star Rating, aggregated Quality and Outcomes Framework scores, Dr Foster mortality index, Dr Foster equity index (heart by-pass and hip replacements), NHS Litigation Authority Risk Management standards and Patient Satisfaction scores from the Star Ratings. Forward stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine the effect of Primary Care Trust characteristics on performance.ResultsStar Rating and Quality and Outcomes Framework total, both summary measures of global quality, were not correlated with each other (F = 0.66, p = 0.57). There were however positive correlations between Quality and Outcomes Framework total and patient satisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and between screening/'additional services' indicators on the Star Ratings and Quality and Outcomes Framework (F = 24, p < 0.001). There was no correlation between different measures of access to services. Likewise we found no relationship between either Star Rating or Litigation Authority Standards and hospital mortality (F = 0.61, p = 0.61; F = 0.31, p = 0.73).ConclusionPerformance assessment in healthcare remains on the Government's agenda, with new core and developmental standards set to replace the Star Ratings in 2006. Yet the results of this analysis provide little evidence that the current indicators have sufficient construct validity to measure the underlying concept of quality, except when the specific area of screening is considered.

Project description:ObjectiveGeneral practitioners have an important role in reducing low-value care as gatekeepers of the health system. The aim of this study was to assess the experiences of Dutch general practitioners regarding low-value care and to identify their needs to decrease low-value primary care.DesignWe performed a cross-sectional study.ParticipantsWe sent a survey to 500 general practitioners.SettingPrimary care in the Netherlands.Primary and secondary outcomesThe survey contained questions about the provision of low-value care and on clinical cases about lumbosacral spine X-rays in patients with low back pain and vitamin B12 laboratory tests without an evidence-based indication. We also asked general practitioners what they needed to reduce low-value care.ResultsA total of 182 general practitioners (37%) responded. 67% indicated that low-value care practices are regularly provided in general practice. 57% of the general practitioners have seen negative consequences of low-value care, in particular side effects of medication. The most provided low-value care practices are medication prescriptions such as antibiotics and laboratory tests such as vitamin B12 tests. The most reported drivers are patient-related. General practitioners want to maintain a good relationship with their patients by offering their patients an intervention instead of watchful waiting. Lack of time also plays a major role. In order to reduce low-value care, general practitioners suggested that educating patients on the value of tests and treatments might help. Supporting general practitioners and other healthcare professionals with clear guidelines as well as having more time for consultation were also mentioned by general practitioners.ConclusionGeneral practitioners are aware of providing unnecessary care despite their role as gatekeepers and have reasons for this. They need support in order to change their practice. This support might consist of better education of healthcare professionals and providing more time for consultation. Local and national media, such as websites and television, could be used to educate patients while guidelines could support professionals in reducing low-value care.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes in how patient care was provided, particularly through the expansion of telehealth and audio-only phone-based care.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate inequities in video and audio-only care during various time points including the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, later stages of the pandemic, and a historical control. We sought to understand the characteristics of care during this time for a variety of different groups of patients that may experience health care inequities.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data from encounters from 34 family medicine and internal medicine primary care clinics in a large, Midwestern health system, using a repeated cross-sectional, observational study design. These data included patient demographic data, as well as encounter, diagnosis, and procedure records. Data were obtained for all in-person and telehealth encounters (including audio-only phone-based care) that occurred during 3 separate time periods: an initial COVID-19 period (T2: March 16, 2020, to May 3, 2020), a later COVID-19 period (T3: May 4, 2020, to September 30, 2020), and a historical control period from the previous year (T1: March 16, 2019, to September 30, 2019). Primary analysis focused on the status of each encounter in terms of whether it was completed as scheduled, it was canceled, or the patient missed the appointment. A secondary analysis was performed to evaluate the likelihood of an encounter being completed based on visit modality (phone, video, in-person).ResultsIn total, there were 938,040 scheduled encounters during the 3 time periods, with 178,747 unique patients, that were included for analysis. Patients with completed encounters were more likely to be younger than 65 years old (71.8%-74.1%), be female (58.8%-61.8%), be White (75.6%-76.7%), and have no significant comorbidities (63.2%-66.8%) or disabilities (53.2%-61.1%) in all time periods than those who had only canceled or missed encounters. Effects on different subpopulations are discussed herein.ConclusionsFindings from this study demonstrate that primary care utilization across delivery modalities (in person, video, and phone) was not equivalent across all groups before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and different groups were differentially impacted at different points. Understanding how different groups of patients responded to these rapid changes and how health care inequities may have been affected is an important step in better understanding implementation strategies for digital solutions in the future.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of patient-physician discussions about chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care has not been studied previously. STUDY DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS:We audiotaped encounters between 236 patients with hypertension and their primary care physicians (n = 40). PREDICTORS:Patient, physician, and encounter characteristics. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS:We described the occurrence and characteristics (content, use of technical terms, and physician assessment of patient comprehension of new concepts) of CKD discussions. We assessed patient and physician characteristics associated with CKD discussion occurrence. RESULTS:Many patients (mean age, 59 years) had uncontrolled hypertension (51%), diabetes (44%), and/or 3 or more comorbid conditions (51%). Most primary care physicians practiced (52%) fewer than 10 years. CKD discussions occurred in few (26%; n = 61) encounters, with content focused on laboratory assessment (89%), risk-factor treatment (28%), and causes (26%) of CKD. In encounters that included a CKD discussion, physicians used technical terms (28%; n = 17) and rarely assessed patients' comprehension (2%; n = 1). CKD discussions were statistically significantly less common in visits of patients with some (vs no) college education (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56), with 3 or more (vs fewer) comorbid conditions (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96), and who saw physicians with more (vs fewer) than 10 years of practice experience (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80). CKD discussions were more common during longer encounters (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.65) and encounters in which diabetes was (vs was not) discussed (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.77). LIMITATIONS:Generalizability of our findings may be limited. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-physician discussions about CKD in high-risk primary care patients were infrequent. Physicians used technical terms and infrequently assessed patients' understanding of new CKD concepts. Efforts to improve the frequency and content of patient-physician CKD discussions in primary care could improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Dizziness is a common and often disabling symptom, but diagnosis often remains unclear; especially in older persons where dizziness tends to be multicausal. Research on dizziness-related impairment might provide options for a functional oriented approach, with less focus on finding diagnoses. We therefore studied dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients and aimed to identify indicators related to this impairment. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study we included 417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 general practitioners in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008. We performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. Our primary outcome was impact of dizziness on everyday life measured with the Dutch validated version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). After a bootstrap procedure (1500x) we investigated predictability of DHI-scores with stepwise backward multiple linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: DHI-scores varied from 0 to 88 (maximum score: 100) and 60% of patients experienced moderate or severe impact on everyday life due to dizziness. Indicators for dizziness-related impairment were: onset of dizziness 6 months ago or more (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7), frequency of dizziness at least daily (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.0-5.4), duration of dizziness episode one minute or less (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.9), presence of anxiety and/or depressive disorder (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.2-8.8), use of sedative drugs (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-3.8) , and impaired functional mobility (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7-4.2). For this model with only 6 indicators the AUC was .80 (95% CI .76-.84). CONCLUSIONS: Dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients is considerable (60%). With six simple indicators it is possible to identify which patients suffer the most from their dizziness without exactly knowing the cause(s) of their dizziness. Influencing these indicators, if possible, may lead to functional improvement and this might be effective in patients with moderate or severe impact of dizziness on their daily lives.

Dataset Information

Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Aim

Background

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Publications

Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets