Cargando…

Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Scotland abolished the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in April 2016, before implementing a new Scottish GP contract in April 2018. Since 2016, groups of practices (GP clusters) have been incentivised to meet regularly to plan and organise quality improvement (QI) as part of this ne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Huayi, Jefferson, Emily R, Gotink, Mark, Sinclair, Carol, Mercer, Stewart W, Guthrie, Bruce
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of General Practitioners 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33798092
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.1101
_version_ 1783730850180890624
author Huang, Huayi
Jefferson, Emily R
Gotink, Mark
Sinclair, Carol
Mercer, Stewart W
Guthrie, Bruce
author_facet Huang, Huayi
Jefferson, Emily R
Gotink, Mark
Sinclair, Carol
Mercer, Stewart W
Guthrie, Bruce
author_sort Huang, Huayi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Scotland abolished the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in April 2016, before implementing a new Scottish GP contract in April 2018. Since 2016, groups of practices (GP clusters) have been incentivised to meet regularly to plan and organise quality improvement (QI) as part of this new direction in primary care policy. AIM: To understand the organisation and perceived impact of GP clusters, including how they use quantitative data for improvement. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 17) and observations of GP cluster meetings (n = 6) in two clusters. METHOD: This analytical strategy was combined with a purposive (variation) sampling approach to the sources of data, to try to identify commonalities across diverse stakeholder experiences of working in or on the idea of GP clusters. Variation was sought particularly in terms of stakeholders’ level of involvement in improvement initiatives, and in their disciplinary affiliations. RESULTS: There was uncertainty as to whether GP clusters should focus on activities generated internally or externally by the wider healthcare system (for example, from Scottish Health Boards), although the two observed clusters generally generated their own ideas and issues. Clusters operated with variable administrative/managerial and data support, and variable baseline leadership experience and QI skills. Qualitative approaches formed the focus of collaborative learning in cluster meetings, through sharing and discussion of member practices’ own understandings and experiences. Less evidence was observed of data analytics being championed in these meetings, partly because of barriers to accessing the analytics data and existing data quality. CONCLUSION: Cluster development would benefit from more consistent training and support for cluster leads in small-group facilitation, leadership, and QI expertise, and data analytics access and capacity. While GP clusters are up and running, their impact is likely to be limited without further investment in developing capacity in these areas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8321438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Royal College of General Practitioners
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83214382021-08-12 Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study Huang, Huayi Jefferson, Emily R Gotink, Mark Sinclair, Carol Mercer, Stewart W Guthrie, Bruce Br J Gen Pract Research BACKGROUND: Scotland abolished the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in April 2016, before implementing a new Scottish GP contract in April 2018. Since 2016, groups of practices (GP clusters) have been incentivised to meet regularly to plan and organise quality improvement (QI) as part of this new direction in primary care policy. AIM: To understand the organisation and perceived impact of GP clusters, including how they use quantitative data for improvement. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 17) and observations of GP cluster meetings (n = 6) in two clusters. METHOD: This analytical strategy was combined with a purposive (variation) sampling approach to the sources of data, to try to identify commonalities across diverse stakeholder experiences of working in or on the idea of GP clusters. Variation was sought particularly in terms of stakeholders’ level of involvement in improvement initiatives, and in their disciplinary affiliations. RESULTS: There was uncertainty as to whether GP clusters should focus on activities generated internally or externally by the wider healthcare system (for example, from Scottish Health Boards), although the two observed clusters generally generated their own ideas and issues. Clusters operated with variable administrative/managerial and data support, and variable baseline leadership experience and QI skills. Qualitative approaches formed the focus of collaborative learning in cluster meetings, through sharing and discussion of member practices’ own understandings and experiences. Less evidence was observed of data analytics being championed in these meetings, partly because of barriers to accessing the analytics data and existing data quality. CONCLUSION: Cluster development would benefit from more consistent training and support for cluster leads in small-group facilitation, leadership, and QI expertise, and data analytics access and capacity. While GP clusters are up and running, their impact is likely to be limited without further investment in developing capacity in these areas. Royal College of General Practitioners 2021-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8321438/ /pubmed/33798092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.1101 Text en © The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Research
Huang, Huayi
Jefferson, Emily R
Gotink, Mark
Sinclair, Carol
Mercer, Stewart W
Guthrie, Bruce
Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study
title Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study
title_full Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study
title_fullStr Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study
title_short Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study
title_sort collaborative improvement in scottish gp clusters after the quality and outcomes framework: a qualitative study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33798092
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.1101
work_keys_str_mv AT huanghuayi collaborativeimprovementinscottishgpclustersafterthequalityandoutcomesframeworkaqualitativestudy
AT jeffersonemilyr collaborativeimprovementinscottishgpclustersafterthequalityandoutcomesframeworkaqualitativestudy
AT gotinkmark collaborativeimprovementinscottishgpclustersafterthequalityandoutcomesframeworkaqualitativestudy
AT sinclaircarol collaborativeimprovementinscottishgpclustersafterthequalityandoutcomesframeworkaqualitativestudy
AT mercerstewartw collaborativeimprovementinscottishgpclustersafterthequalityandoutcomesframeworkaqualitativestudy
AT guthriebruce collaborativeimprovementinscottishgpclustersafterthequalityandoutcomesframeworkaqualitativestudy