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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |