Cargando…

What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial

OBJECTIVES: This study is a process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) study, comparing audit-based education (ABE) and sending clinical guidelines and prompts (G&P) with usual practice, in improving systolic blood pressure control in primary care. This evalu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nihat, Akin, de Lusignan, Simon, Thomas, Nicola, Tahir, Mohammad Aumran, Gallagher, Hugh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27053264
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008480
_version_ 1782425920324239360
author Nihat, Akin
de Lusignan, Simon
Thomas, Nicola
Tahir, Mohammad Aumran
Gallagher, Hugh
author_facet Nihat, Akin
de Lusignan, Simon
Thomas, Nicola
Tahir, Mohammad Aumran
Gallagher, Hugh
author_sort Nihat, Akin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This study is a process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) study, comparing audit-based education (ABE) and sending clinical guidelines and prompts (G&P) with usual practice, in improving systolic blood pressure control in primary care. This evaluation aimed to explore how far clinical staff in participating practices were aware of the intervention, and why change in practice might have taken place. SETTING: 4 primary care practices in England: 2 received ABE, and 2 G&P. We purposively selected 1 northern/southern/city and rural practice from each study arm (from a larger pool of 132 practices as part of the QICKD trial). PARTICIPANTS: The 4 study practices were purposively sampled, and focus groups conducted with staff from each. All staff members were invited to attend. INTERVENTIONS: Focus groups in each of 4 practices, at the mid-study point and at the end. 4 additional trial practices not originally selected for in-depth process evaluation took part in end of trial focus groups, to a total of 12 focus groups. These were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: 5 themes emerged: (1) involvement in the study made participants more positive about the CKD register; (2) clinicians did not always explain to patients that they had CKD; (3) while practitioners improved their monitoring of CKD, many were sceptical that it improved care and were more motivated by pay-for-performance measures; (4) the impact of study interventions on practice was generally positive, particularly the interaction with specialists, included in ABE; (5) the study stimulated ideas for future clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Improving quality in CKD is complex. Lack of awareness of clinical guidelines and scepticism about their validity are barriers to change. While pay-for-performance incentives are the main driver for change, quality improvement interventions can have a complementary influence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4823455
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48234552016-04-19 What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial Nihat, Akin de Lusignan, Simon Thomas, Nicola Tahir, Mohammad Aumran Gallagher, Hugh BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVES: This study is a process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) study, comparing audit-based education (ABE) and sending clinical guidelines and prompts (G&P) with usual practice, in improving systolic blood pressure control in primary care. This evaluation aimed to explore how far clinical staff in participating practices were aware of the intervention, and why change in practice might have taken place. SETTING: 4 primary care practices in England: 2 received ABE, and 2 G&P. We purposively selected 1 northern/southern/city and rural practice from each study arm (from a larger pool of 132 practices as part of the QICKD trial). PARTICIPANTS: The 4 study practices were purposively sampled, and focus groups conducted with staff from each. All staff members were invited to attend. INTERVENTIONS: Focus groups in each of 4 practices, at the mid-study point and at the end. 4 additional trial practices not originally selected for in-depth process evaluation took part in end of trial focus groups, to a total of 12 focus groups. These were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: 5 themes emerged: (1) involvement in the study made participants more positive about the CKD register; (2) clinicians did not always explain to patients that they had CKD; (3) while practitioners improved their monitoring of CKD, many were sceptical that it improved care and were more motivated by pay-for-performance measures; (4) the impact of study interventions on practice was generally positive, particularly the interaction with specialists, included in ABE; (5) the study stimulated ideas for future clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Improving quality in CKD is complex. Lack of awareness of clinical guidelines and scepticism about their validity are barriers to change. While pay-for-performance incentives are the main driver for change, quality improvement interventions can have a complementary influence. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4823455/ /pubmed/27053264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008480 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Nihat, Akin
de Lusignan, Simon
Thomas, Nicola
Tahir, Mohammad Aumran
Gallagher, Hugh
What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial
title What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial
title_full What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial
title_fullStr What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial
title_full_unstemmed What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial
title_short What drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care: process evaluation of the Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (QICKD) trial
title_sort what drives quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (ckd) in primary care: process evaluation of the quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (qickd) trial
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27053264
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008480
work_keys_str_mv AT nihatakin whatdrivesqualityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseckdinprimarycareprocessevaluationofthequalityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseqickdtrial
AT delusignansimon whatdrivesqualityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseckdinprimarycareprocessevaluationofthequalityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseqickdtrial
AT thomasnicola whatdrivesqualityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseckdinprimarycareprocessevaluationofthequalityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseqickdtrial
AT tahirmohammadaumran whatdrivesqualityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseckdinprimarycareprocessevaluationofthequalityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseqickdtrial
AT gallagherhugh whatdrivesqualityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseckdinprimarycareprocessevaluationofthequalityimprovementinchronickidneydiseaseqickdtrial