PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P van Montfort

Publications and source records attributed to P van Montfort.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Continuous quality improvement in small general medical practices: the attitudes of general practitioners and other practice staff.

OBJECTIVES: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) offers opportunities to improve care in small-scale office-based practice. Little is yet known about the implementation of CQI in small primary care practices. We studied the attitudes of physicians and staff in small family practices to a model of CQI tailored to office-based practice setting. PRACTICES AND DESIGN: An exploratory study in 20 family practices in The Netherlands. Practices were stimulated to adopt the model for continuous quality improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of the model at the end of the study period, the perception of the physicians and staff of their success with adopting the model, their view of its usefulness, their willingness to continue and personal and practical obstacles. Measurements were made using written questionnaires. RESULTS: The rate of implementation of the model varied between practices. Participants rated their success in performing improvement projects, holding regular quality meetings and setting targets and priorities. They were positive about the usefulness of the model and they were generally willing to continue to use it. Barriers included the size of workload and the tendency to postpone actions until external support by an outreach visitor was provided. Physician and staff attitudes were homogeneous at a practice level. CONCLUSION: Our findings stress the importance of starting CQI with small, easy-to-handle projects. Workload reduction might be an important issue to focus on. Personal obstacles should be addressed throughout the introduction. We found attitudes in small-scale practices to be homogeneous, so that it was important to pay explicit attention to commitment to CQI from the start of the introduction.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1999

Setting up improvement projects in small scale primary care practices: feasibility of a model for continuous quality improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of a model for continuous quality improvement in small scale general practice and the improvement projects that practices ran after the introduction of continuous quality improvement. DESIGN: A descriptive study. SETTING: Twenty general practices in the Netherlands tested the model in an intervention period of 18 months. INTERVENTION: A model for continuous quality improvement adapted for general practice was introduced into the practices using a structured strategy. Practices were supported by trained facilitators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptance at introduction and continued application of the model; the topics of improvement projects that were set up in the practices; whether the improvement projects had been completed; whether they had met the criteria (the use of the "quality cycle" and the Oxford audit score); and whether the self set objectives had been met. RESULTS: The model was introduced and accepted in all participating practices. Practices started 51 improvement projects. At the end of the study period 33 improvement projects had been completed. Practices chose a wide variety of objectives for these projects; most of them concerned medical or organisational topics. Practices started projects mainly because the topic was felt to be a problem or was causing a bottleneck in the organisation. The quality cycle was used in all projects, but practices did not always collect data and evaluate the outcomes. Fourteen projects could be discerned as "full audit". No differences existed in the quality of improvement projects among the various types of practice or between the topics addressed. At the end of the study period half of the practices continued applying the model. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the model was feasible for small scale general practice. However, application of the model tended to disintegrate after the facilitator had left the practice. Practices succeeded reasonably well in running improvement projects. Introduction of continuous quality improvement should particularly focus on this. It is suggested that intensive support is necessary to implement and maintain continuous quality improvement in small scale practices.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1997

Does the health status of chronically ill patients predict their judgements of the quality of general practice care?

Patients' health status as well as patients' judgements of care are used for assessing patients' perspectives, but the relation between those two concepts is unclear. In this study we explored whether health status predicts patients' judgements of the quality of general practice care. Hand-distributed and mailed surveys were performed by 28 general practitioners in The Netherlands. Chronically ill patients were approached when visiting the general practice or drawn from the practice registers. Health status was measured by WONCA/COOP charts, and patients' judgements by the CEP, a previously validated questionnaire. The response rate was 63% (n = 762). When controlled for other patient characteristics, a poor overall health predicted less positive judgements of medical care, information, counselling, relation and communication, continuity of care and the organization of appointments (p < 0.01). Poor mental well-being predicted less positive judgements of the cooperation between care providers and a stronger need for more care (p < 0.001). The four other aspects of health status did not predict the patients' judgements. Judgements about the premises and the availability for emergencies were not predicted by health status. It can be concluded that a multidimensional approach should be used for interpreting the relations between patients' health status and their judgements of general practice care.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Indicators of the quality of general practice care of patients with chronic illness: a step towards the real involvement of patients in the assessment of the quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a list of indicators of the general practice care of people with chronic illnesses considered important by both patients and practitioners and to identify the indicators that are considered relevant for patient assessment of health care quality. DESIGN: Qualitative study with focus group interviews and a written consensus procedure. SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands in 1993. SUBJECTS: 34 patients with chronic illness, mostly members of patient organisations, and 19 general practitioners with expertise in either chronic disease management or experience with patient surveys. MAIN MEASURES: Aspects of general practice care considered important for the delivery of good quality care that emerged from focus group interviews; the relevance of evaluations of 41 aspects of care for patients explored through the written consensus procedure. Those aspects of general practice care agreed to be both important and relevant by patients and general practitioners were considered to be suitable indicators for patient assessment of the quality of care. RESULTS: Patients and general practitioners differed to some extent in their assessment of the aspects of care that they considered important for quality. They agreed that most indicators of care that related to the ¿doctor-patient relation¿ and to ¿information and support¿ were relevant and therefore suitable as indicators for patient assessment of health care quality. There was less agreement about the relevance of indicators of ¿medical and technical care,¿ ¿availability and accessibility,¿ and ¿organisation of services.¿ CONCLUSIONS: Several indicators of the quality of general practice care of patients with chronic illness were thought to be suitable for the patient assessment of healthcare quality, but other indicators were not, mainly because of reservations by general practitioners. IMPLICATIONS: Qualitative methods can contribute to the selection of indicators for assessment of the quality of health care in areas where scientific evidence is limited or where patients' and providers' preferences are particularly important.

Chronic Disease↗