Acceptability of methods and measures used to determine quality of general practice consultations: results of a focus group study and an acceptability questionnaire
General practitioner activity is increasingly under pressure to monitor its performance. The involvement of service users in the development and assessment of services is said to be a key feature of this process. This article reports on the acceptability among general practitioners of a patient-comp...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Primary health care research & development 2002-01, Vol.3 (1), p.29-41, Article 29 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 41 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 29 |
container_title | Primary health care research & development |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | Maxwell, Margaret Heaney, David J Howie, John GR Walker, Jeremy J Freeman, George K |
description | General practitioner activity is increasingly under pressure to monitor its performance. The involvement of service users in the development and assessment of services is said to be a key feature of this process. This article reports on the acceptability among general practitioners of a patient-completed post-consultation measure of outcome (the Patient Enablement Instrument; PEI), and its use in conjunction with two further indicators of quality, namely time spent in consultation and patients reporting knowing the doctor well. The survey was conducted using focus groups and the administration of a postal questionnaire among a group of general practices that had participated and received feedback from a large quantitative study testing these measures. The focus group study provided useful insights into general practitioners' perceptions of patient assessment of their performance and their concerns surrounding the measurement of general practice activity. The general practitioners' perceptions of the measures under the study were enmeshed within these concerns overall. The PEI was seen as being generally acceptable as a measure of patient assessment of care, and the methods of data collection were acceptable for routine use in general practice. General practitioners who performed better in terms of their feedback scores generally approved more of the proposed measures. However, these general practitioners were not comfortable with the concept of assessment of the clinical interaction by patients, and were anxious to link such assessment explicitly with clinical (disease-related) outcome. Doctors who performed ‘better’ were no more likely than those who performed less well to advocate more use of patient assessment, or to believe that patient assessment of consultations is a reliable quality indicator. These concerns need to be addressed if patients' assessments of their care are to be taken seriously. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1191/1463423602pc075oa |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_764144338</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1191_1463423602pc075oa</cupid><sourcerecordid>764144338</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306a-a067061e3fcdd7481c9932ac317840d703f9ad76b75fa4cbcd831ee9bd59c9f03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1O3TAQRiNUJCjwAOwsNqwCduwbJ-wQagsSEhtYR5Px5GKUxME_i_s-fdAmXBACVFYeS-eMv_Fk2bHgZ0LU4lyoUqpClryYkOuVg51sXyitcyGK6sdSlzJfgL3sZwhPnIuKl3o_-3uJSFOE1vY2bpjr2EDx0ZnAYDRzDSF5CiwFMiw6ZiiSH-xI7DnBm7GmkTz0bPKA0SIxdGNIfYRo5-KCzQ3mW1hQYJ3DFNjauzSxEJPZvDwEI4MPQZ4ThUUfwXo6zHY76AMdvZ4H2cPvX_dX1_nt3Z-bq8vbHCUvIYd5Il4Kkh0ao1UlsK5lASiFrhQ3msuuBqPLVq86UNiiqaQgqluzqrHuuDzITrd9J-9eAjSDDUh9DyO5FBpdKqGUlNVMnnwin1zy4xyuKYpCV0W9WiCxhdC7EDx1zeTtAH7TCN4sW2u-bG129CcH7fYjowfbf2vKVxOG1luzpvdM_7f-ASKMsXY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>222782958</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Acceptability of methods and measures used to determine quality of general practice consultations: results of a focus group study and an acceptability questionnaire</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Maxwell, Margaret ; Heaney, David J ; Howie, John GR ; Walker, Jeremy J ; Freeman, George K</creator><creatorcontrib>Maxwell, Margaret ; Heaney, David J ; Howie, John GR ; Walker, Jeremy J ; Freeman, George K</creatorcontrib><description>General practitioner activity is increasingly under pressure to monitor its performance. The involvement of service users in the development and assessment of services is said to be a key feature of this process. This article reports on the acceptability among general practitioners of a patient-completed post-consultation measure of outcome (the Patient Enablement Instrument; PEI), and its use in conjunction with two further indicators of quality, namely time spent in consultation and patients reporting knowing the doctor well. The survey was conducted using focus groups and the administration of a postal questionnaire among a group of general practices that had participated and received feedback from a large quantitative study testing these measures. The focus group study provided useful insights into general practitioners' perceptions of patient assessment of their performance and their concerns surrounding the measurement of general practice activity. The general practitioners' perceptions of the measures under the study were enmeshed within these concerns overall. The PEI was seen as being generally acceptable as a measure of patient assessment of care, and the methods of data collection were acceptable for routine use in general practice. General practitioners who performed better in terms of their feedback scores generally approved more of the proposed measures. However, these general practitioners were not comfortable with the concept of assessment of the clinical interaction by patients, and were anxious to link such assessment explicitly with clinical (disease-related) outcome. Doctors who performed ‘better’ were no more likely than those who performed less well to advocate more use of patient assessment, or to believe that patient assessment of consultations is a reliable quality indicator. These concerns need to be addressed if patients' assessments of their care are to be taken seriously.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1463-4236</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1477-1128</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-1128</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1191/1463423602pc075oa</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Original Article</subject><ispartof>Primary health care research & development, 2002-01, Vol.3 (1), p.29-41, Article 29</ispartof><rights>2002 Arnold</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306a-a067061e3fcdd7481c9932ac317840d703f9ad76b75fa4cbcd831ee9bd59c9f03</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maxwell, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heaney, David J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howie, John GR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Jeremy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freeman, George K</creatorcontrib><title>Acceptability of methods and measures used to determine quality of general practice consultations: results of a focus group study and an acceptability questionnaire</title><title>Primary health care research & development</title><addtitle>Prim Health Care Res Dev</addtitle><description>General practitioner activity is increasingly under pressure to monitor its performance. The involvement of service users in the development and assessment of services is said to be a key feature of this process. This article reports on the acceptability among general practitioners of a patient-completed post-consultation measure of outcome (the Patient Enablement Instrument; PEI), and its use in conjunction with two further indicators of quality, namely time spent in consultation and patients reporting knowing the doctor well. The survey was conducted using focus groups and the administration of a postal questionnaire among a group of general practices that had participated and received feedback from a large quantitative study testing these measures. The focus group study provided useful insights into general practitioners' perceptions of patient assessment of their performance and their concerns surrounding the measurement of general practice activity. The general practitioners' perceptions of the measures under the study were enmeshed within these concerns overall. The PEI was seen as being generally acceptable as a measure of patient assessment of care, and the methods of data collection were acceptable for routine use in general practice. General practitioners who performed better in terms of their feedback scores generally approved more of the proposed measures. However, these general practitioners were not comfortable with the concept of assessment of the clinical interaction by patients, and were anxious to link such assessment explicitly with clinical (disease-related) outcome. Doctors who performed ‘better’ were no more likely than those who performed less well to advocate more use of patient assessment, or to believe that patient assessment of consultations is a reliable quality indicator. These concerns need to be addressed if patients' assessments of their care are to be taken seriously.</description><subject>Original Article</subject><issn>1463-4236</issn><issn>1477-1128</issn><issn>1477-1128</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1O3TAQRiNUJCjwAOwsNqwCduwbJ-wQagsSEhtYR5Px5GKUxME_i_s-fdAmXBACVFYeS-eMv_Fk2bHgZ0LU4lyoUqpClryYkOuVg51sXyitcyGK6sdSlzJfgL3sZwhPnIuKl3o_-3uJSFOE1vY2bpjr2EDx0ZnAYDRzDSF5CiwFMiw6ZiiSH-xI7DnBm7GmkTz0bPKA0SIxdGNIfYRo5-KCzQ3mW1hQYJ3DFNjauzSxEJPZvDwEI4MPQZ4ThUUfwXo6zHY76AMdvZ4H2cPvX_dX1_nt3Z-bq8vbHCUvIYd5Il4Kkh0ao1UlsK5lASiFrhQ3msuuBqPLVq86UNiiqaQgqluzqrHuuDzITrd9J-9eAjSDDUh9DyO5FBpdKqGUlNVMnnwin1zy4xyuKYpCV0W9WiCxhdC7EDx1zeTtAH7TCN4sW2u-bG129CcH7fYjowfbf2vKVxOG1luzpvdM_7f-ASKMsXY</recordid><startdate>200201</startdate><enddate>200201</enddate><creator>Maxwell, Margaret</creator><creator>Heaney, David J</creator><creator>Howie, John GR</creator><creator>Walker, Jeremy J</creator><creator>Freeman, George K</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200201</creationdate><title>Acceptability of methods and measures used to determine quality of general practice consultations: results of a focus group study and an acceptability questionnaire</title><author>Maxwell, Margaret ; Heaney, David J ; Howie, John GR ; Walker, Jeremy J ; Freeman, George K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c306a-a067061e3fcdd7481c9932ac317840d703f9ad76b75fa4cbcd831ee9bd59c9f03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Original Article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maxwell, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heaney, David J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howie, John GR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Jeremy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freeman, George K</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><jtitle>Primary health care research & development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maxwell, Margaret</au><au>Heaney, David J</au><au>Howie, John GR</au><au>Walker, Jeremy J</au><au>Freeman, George K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Acceptability of methods and measures used to determine quality of general practice consultations: results of a focus group study and an acceptability questionnaire</atitle><jtitle>Primary health care research & development</jtitle><addtitle>Prim Health Care Res Dev</addtitle><date>2002-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>41</epage><pages>29-41</pages><artnum>29</artnum><issn>1463-4236</issn><issn>1477-1128</issn><eissn>1477-1128</eissn><abstract>General practitioner activity is increasingly under pressure to monitor its performance. The involvement of service users in the development and assessment of services is said to be a key feature of this process. This article reports on the acceptability among general practitioners of a patient-completed post-consultation measure of outcome (the Patient Enablement Instrument; PEI), and its use in conjunction with two further indicators of quality, namely time spent in consultation and patients reporting knowing the doctor well. The survey was conducted using focus groups and the administration of a postal questionnaire among a group of general practices that had participated and received feedback from a large quantitative study testing these measures. The focus group study provided useful insights into general practitioners' perceptions of patient assessment of their performance and their concerns surrounding the measurement of general practice activity. The general practitioners' perceptions of the measures under the study were enmeshed within these concerns overall. The PEI was seen as being generally acceptable as a measure of patient assessment of care, and the methods of data collection were acceptable for routine use in general practice. General practitioners who performed better in terms of their feedback scores generally approved more of the proposed measures. However, these general practitioners were not comfortable with the concept of assessment of the clinical interaction by patients, and were anxious to link such assessment explicitly with clinical (disease-related) outcome. Doctors who performed ‘better’ were no more likely than those who performed less well to advocate more use of patient assessment, or to believe that patient assessment of consultations is a reliable quality indicator. These concerns need to be addressed if patients' assessments of their care are to be taken seriously.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1191/1463423602pc075oa</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1463-4236 |
ispartof | Primary health care research & development, 2002-01, Vol.3 (1), p.29-41, Article 29 |
issn | 1463-4236 1477-1128 1477-1128 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_764144338 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Original Article |
title | Acceptability of methods and measures used to determine quality of general practice consultations: results of a focus group study and an acceptability questionnaire |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T02%3A58%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Acceptability%20of%20methods%20and%20measures%20used%20to%20determine%20quality%20of%20general%20practice%20consultations:%20results%20of%20a%20focus%20group%20study%20and%20an%20acceptability%20questionnaire&rft.jtitle=Primary%20health%20care%20research%20&%20development&rft.au=Maxwell,%20Margaret&rft.date=2002-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=41&rft.pages=29-41&rft.artnum=29&rft.issn=1463-4236&rft.eissn=1477-1128&rft_id=info:doi/10.1191/1463423602pc075oa&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E764144338%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=222782958&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1191_1463423602pc075oa&rfr_iscdi=true |