Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

General practitioners uses and perceptions of voluntary electronic feedback on treatment outcomes – a qualitative study

Authors: Maria Laura Lippert, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard, Lars Bjerrum

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Currently, there is a strong focus on the diffusion and implementation of indicator-based technologies for assessing and improving the quality of care in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how and for what purposes indicator-based feedback is used by the general practitioners (GPs) and how they perceive it to contribute to their work.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with nine GPs in two regions in Denmark. The main selection criterion was that the informants had experience with retrieving electronic feedback. The data generation was explorative and open-ended and the analysis took an iterative approach with continuous refinement of themes that emerged from the data.

Results

The study identified two main uses of feedback: i) Administration of a regular disease control schedule for patients with chronic disease and ii) Routine monitoring of outcomes for purposes of resource prioritisation and medication management. Both uses were deemed valuable by the GPs, but also as an additional extra to the clinical core task. All the GPs experienced the feedback to be of limited relevance to the most central and challenging aspects of clinical work understood as the care for individuals. This led to different reactions: Some GPs would use the feedback as a point of departure for broader deliberations about individual patient needs and treatment approaches. For others, the perceived limitations decreased their overall motivation to seek feedback.

Conclusions

The study points to the importance of clarifying limitations as well as possibilities with respect to different aspects of clinical quality when introducing indicator-based technologies to practitioners. The results also emphasize that an indicator-based approach to quality improvement should not stand alone in general practice since some of the most central and challenging aspects of clinical work are not covered by this approach.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Campbell SM, Kontopantelis E, Hannon K, Burke M, Barber A, Lester HE: Framework and indicator testing protocol for developing and piloting quality indicators for the UK quality and outcomes framework. BMC Fam Pract. 2011, 12: 85-10.1186/1471-2296-12-85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Campbell SM, Kontopantelis E, Hannon K, Burke M, Barber A, Lester HE: Framework and indicator testing protocol for developing and piloting quality indicators for the UK quality and outcomes framework. BMC Fam Pract. 2011, 12: 85-10.1186/1471-2296-12-85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Djalali S, Frei A, Tandjung R, Baltensperger A, Rosemann T: Swiss quality and outcomes framework: quality indicators for diabetes management in swiss primary care based on electronic medical records. Gerontology. 2014, 60 (3): 263-273. 10.1159/000357370.CrossRefPubMed Djalali S, Frei A, Tandjung R, Baltensperger A, Rosemann T: Swiss quality and outcomes framework: quality indicators for diabetes management in swiss primary care based on electronic medical records. Gerontology. 2014, 60 (3): 263-273. 10.1159/000357370.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Price D, Howard M, Dolovich L, Laryea S, Hilts L, Barbara A: Practice-based collection of quality indicator data for a comprehensive quality assessment programme in Canadian family practices. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010, 19 (6): e47-PubMed Price D, Howard M, Dolovich L, Laryea S, Hilts L, Barbara A: Practice-based collection of quality indicator data for a comprehensive quality assessment programme in Canadian family practices. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010, 19 (6): e47-PubMed
4.
go back to reference Sahota N, Hood A, Shankar A, Watt B, Ramaiah S: Developing performance indicators for primary care: Walsall’s experience. Br J Gen Pract. 2008, 58: 856-861. 10.3399/bjgp08X376096.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sahota N, Hood A, Shankar A, Watt B, Ramaiah S: Developing performance indicators for primary care: Walsall’s experience. Br J Gen Pract. 2008, 58: 856-861. 10.3399/bjgp08X376096.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference van der Ploeg E, Depla MF, Shekelle P, Rigter H, Mackenbach JP: Developing quality indicators for general practice care for vulnerable elders; transfer from US to The Netherlands. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008, 17 (4): 291-295. 10.1136/qshc.2007.023226.CrossRefPubMed van der Ploeg E, Depla MF, Shekelle P, Rigter H, Mackenbach JP: Developing quality indicators for general practice care for vulnerable elders; transfer from US to The Netherlands. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008, 17 (4): 291-295. 10.1136/qshc.2007.023226.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2012, 6: CD000259- Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2012, 6: CD000259-
7.
go back to reference van der Veer SN, De Keizer NF, Ravelli AC, Tenkink S, Jager KJ: Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform. 2010, 79: 305-323. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.011.CrossRefPubMed van der Veer SN, De Keizer NF, Ravelli AC, Tenkink S, Jager KJ: Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform. 2010, 79: 305-323. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.011.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R: What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005, 5: 50-10.1186/1472-6963-5-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R: What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005, 5: 50-10.1186/1472-6963-5-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Bardach NS, Cabana MD: The unintended consequences of quality improvement. Curr Opin Pediatr 2009, 21(6) doi:10.1097/MOP.0b013e3283329937., Bardach NS, Cabana MD: The unintended consequences of quality improvement. Curr Opin Pediatr 2009, 21(6) doi:10.1097/MOP.0b013e3283329937.,
10.
go back to reference Lester HE, Hannon KL, Campbell SM: Identifying unintended consequences of quality indicators: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011, 20 (12): 1057-1061. 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048371.CrossRefPubMed Lester HE, Hannon KL, Campbell SM: Identifying unintended consequences of quality indicators: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011, 20 (12): 1057-1061. 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048371.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Mannion R, Braithwaite J: Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Intern Med J. 2012, 42 (5): 569-574. 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02766.x. doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02766.xCrossRefPubMed Mannion R, Braithwaite J: Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Intern Med J. 2012, 42 (5): 569-574. 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02766.x. doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02766.xCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Powell AA, White KM, Partin MR, Halek K, Christianson JB, Neil B, Hysong SJ, Zarling EJ, Bloomfield HE: Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local into local practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2011, 27 (4): 405-412. 10.1007/s11606-011-1906-3. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1906-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Powell AA, White KM, Partin MR, Halek K, Christianson JB, Neil B, Hysong SJ, Zarling EJ, Bloomfield HE: Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local into local practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2011, 27 (4): 405-412. 10.1007/s11606-011-1906-3. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1906-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Power M: The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford Power M: The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford
14.
go back to reference Dahler-Larsen P: The Evaluation Society. 2012, Stanford University Press, Stanford Dahler-Larsen P: The Evaluation Society. 2012, Stanford University Press, Stanford
15.
go back to reference Checkland K: National service frameworks and UK general practitioners: street-level bureaucrats at work?. Sociol Health Illn. 2004, 26: 951-975. 10.1111/j.0141-9889.2004.00424.x.CrossRefPubMed Checkland K: National service frameworks and UK general practitioners: street-level bureaucrats at work?. Sociol Health Illn. 2004, 26: 951-975. 10.1111/j.0141-9889.2004.00424.x.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Howie JGR, Heaney D, Maxwell M: Core values and the general practice consultation: issues of definition, measurement and delivery. Fam Pract. 2004, 21: 458-468. 10.1093/fampra/cmh419.CrossRefPubMed Howie JGR, Heaney D, Maxwell M: Core values and the general practice consultation: issues of definition, measurement and delivery. Fam Pract. 2004, 21: 458-468. 10.1093/fampra/cmh419.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Chew-Graham CA, Hunter C, Langer S, Stenhoff A, Drinkwater J, Guthrie EA, Salmon P: How QOF is shaping primary care review consultations: a longitudinal qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2013, 14: 103-10.1186/1471-2296-14-103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chew-Graham CA, Hunter C, Langer S, Stenhoff A, Drinkwater J, Guthrie EA, Salmon P: How QOF is shaping primary care review consultations: a longitudinal qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2013, 14: 103-10.1186/1471-2296-14-103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Gillam S, Siriwardena AN: The Quality and Outcomes Framework: QOF – transforming general practice. 2011, Radcliffe Publishing, Abingdon Gillam S, Siriwardena AN: The Quality and Outcomes Framework: QOF – transforming general practice. 2011, Radcliffe Publishing, Abingdon
19.
go back to reference Ferguson J, Wakeling J, Bowie P: Factors influencing the effectiveness of multisource feedback in improving the professional practice of medical doctors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014, 14: 76-10.1186/1472-6920-14-76. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-76CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ferguson J, Wakeling J, Bowie P: Factors influencing the effectiveness of multisource feedback in improving the professional practice of medical doctors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014, 14: 76-10.1186/1472-6920-14-76. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-76CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Wilkinson D, Michie S, McCarthy M: The use and perceptions of routine health data: a qualitative study of four cancer network teams in England. Health Serv Manage Res. 2007, 4: 211-219. 10.1258/095148407782219058.CrossRef Wilkinson D, Michie S, McCarthy M: The use and perceptions of routine health data: a qualitative study of four cancer network teams in England. Health Serv Manage Res. 2007, 4: 211-219. 10.1258/095148407782219058.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Campbell S, McDonald R, Lester H: The experience of pay for performance in English family practice: a qualitative study. Ann Fam Med. 2008, 6: 228-234. 10.1370/afm.844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Campbell S, McDonald R, Lester H: The experience of pay for performance in English family practice: a qualitative study. Ann Fam Med. 2008, 6: 228-234. 10.1370/afm.844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Langdown C, Peckham S: The use of financial incentives to help improve health outcomes: is the quality and outcomes framework fit for purpose? A systematic review. J Public Health 2013, Epub ahead of print., Langdown C, Peckham S: The use of financial incentives to help improve health outcomes: is the quality and outcomes framework fit for purpose? A systematic review. J Public Health 2013, Epub ahead of print.,
23.
go back to reference McDonald R, White J, Marmor TR: Paying for performance in primary medical care: learning about and learning from “success” and “failure” in England and California. J Health Polit Polic. 2009, 34: 747-776. 10.1215/03616878-2009-024.CrossRef McDonald R, White J, Marmor TR: Paying for performance in primary medical care: learning about and learning from “success” and “failure” in England and California. J Health Polit Polic. 2009, 34: 747-776. 10.1215/03616878-2009-024.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Berg M, Bowker G: The multiple bodies of the medical record: Toward a Sociology of an artefact. Sociol Quart. 1997, 38: 513-537. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00490.x.CrossRef Berg M, Bowker G: The multiple bodies of the medical record: Toward a Sociology of an artefact. Sociol Quart. 1997, 38: 513-537. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00490.x.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sandelowski M: Whatever happened to qualitative description?. Res Nurs Health. 2000, 23: 334-340. 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefPubMed Sandelowski M: Whatever happened to qualitative description?. Res Nurs Health. 2000, 23: 334-340. 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Sandelowski M: What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010, 33: 77-84.PubMed Sandelowski M: What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010, 33: 77-84.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Caelli K, Ray L, Mill J: ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2003, 2: 1-13. Caelli K, Ray L, Mill J: ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2003, 2: 1-13.
29.
go back to reference Kvale S: InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. 1996, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Kvale S: InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. 1996, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
30.
go back to reference Patton MQ: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 2002, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Patton MQ: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 2002, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
31.
go back to reference Winthereik BR, van der Ploeg I, Berg M: The electronic patient record as a meaningful audit tool accountability and autonomy in GP work. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2007, 32: 6-25. 10.1177/0162243906293884.CrossRef Winthereik BR, van der Ploeg I, Berg M: The electronic patient record as a meaningful audit tool accountability and autonomy in GP work. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2007, 32: 6-25. 10.1177/0162243906293884.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Checkland K, McDonald R, Harrison S: Ticking boxes and changing the social world: data collection and the New UK General Practice Contract. Soc Policy Admin. 2007, 41: 693-710. 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00580.x.CrossRef Checkland K, McDonald R, Harrison S: Ticking boxes and changing the social world: data collection and the New UK General Practice Contract. Soc Policy Admin. 2007, 41: 693-710. 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00580.x.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Checkland K, Harrison S: The impact of the QOF on practice organisation and service delivery. The Quality and Outcomes Framework: QOF - Transforming General Practice. Edited by: Gillam S, Siriwardena AN. 2011, Radcliffe Publishing, Abingdon, 93-107. Checkland K, Harrison S: The impact of the QOF on practice organisation and service delivery. The Quality and Outcomes Framework: QOF - Transforming General Practice. Edited by: Gillam S, Siriwardena AN. 2011, Radcliffe Publishing, Abingdon, 93-107.
34.
go back to reference Rhodes P, Langdon M, Rowley E, Wright J, Small N: What does the use of a computerized checklist mean for patient-centred care? The example of a routine diabetes review. Qual Health Res. 2006, 16: 353-376. 10.1177/1049732305282396.CrossRefPubMed Rhodes P, Langdon M, Rowley E, Wright J, Small N: What does the use of a computerized checklist mean for patient-centred care? The example of a routine diabetes review. Qual Health Res. 2006, 16: 353-376. 10.1177/1049732305282396.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Thorsen T: Almen praksis’ modtagelse af forløbsydelsen for diabetespatienter: En kvalitativ evaluering efter det første år. 2008 Thorsen T: Almen praksis’ modtagelse af forløbsydelsen for diabetespatienter: En kvalitativ evaluering efter det første år. 2008
36.
go back to reference Kvalitet i almen praksis – hvad kan måles og hvordan?. 2007 Kvalitet i almen praksis – hvad kan måles og hvordan?. 2007
38.
39.
go back to reference Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005, 15: 1277-1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefPubMed Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005, 15: 1277-1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Gannik D, Saaby J: Kvalitet i almen praksis – Praktiserende lægers syn på fagets essens, vilkår og udvikling i Viborg Amt. 2004 Gannik D, Saaby J: Kvalitet i almen praksis – Praktiserende lægers syn på fagets essens, vilkår og udvikling i Viborg Amt. 2004
41.
42.
go back to reference Marshall MN: Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996, 13: 522-525. 10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.CrossRefPubMed Marshall MN: Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996, 13: 522-525. 10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Ikke-insulinkrævende diabetes – NIDDM. En praktisk vejledning for behandlere. 1991 Ikke-insulinkrævende diabetes – NIDDM. En praktisk vejledning for behandlere. 1991
44.
go back to reference Flyvbjerg B: Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006, 12: 219-245. 10.1177/1077800405284363.CrossRef Flyvbjerg B: Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006, 12: 219-245. 10.1177/1077800405284363.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. 2003, Free Press, New York, 5 Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. 2003, Free Press, New York, 5
46.
go back to reference Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Cees in ‘t V, Rutten G, Mokkink H: Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998, 317: 858-861. 10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Cees in ‘t V, Rutten G, Mokkink H: Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998, 317: 858-861. 10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
go back to reference Murphy EA, Dingwall R: Qualitative Methods and Health Policy Research. 2003, Walter de Gruyter, New York Murphy EA, Dingwall R: Qualitative Methods and Health Policy Research. 2003, Walter de Gruyter, New York
48.
go back to reference Coleman T, Murphy E: Combining qualitative interviews with video-recorded consultations: gaining insight into GPs’ decision-making. Fam Pract. 1999, 16: 173-178. 10.1093/fampra/16.2.173.CrossRefPubMed Coleman T, Murphy E: Combining qualitative interviews with video-recorded consultations: gaining insight into GPs’ decision-making. Fam Pract. 1999, 16: 173-178. 10.1093/fampra/16.2.173.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Dowrick C, Leydon GM, McBride A, Howe A, Burgess H, Clarke P, Maisey S, Kendrick T: Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study. BMJ. 2009, 338: b663-10.1136/bmj.b663.CrossRefPubMed Dowrick C, Leydon GM, McBride A, Howe A, Burgess H, Clarke P, Maisey S, Kendrick T: Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study. BMJ. 2009, 338: b663-10.1136/bmj.b663.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Mitchell C, Dwyer R, Hagan T, Mathers N: Impact of the QOF and the NICE guideline in the diagnosis and management of depression: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011, 61 (586): e279-e289. 10.3399/bjgp11X572472.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mitchell C, Dwyer R, Hagan T, Mathers N: Impact of the QOF and the NICE guideline in the diagnosis and management of depression: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011, 61 (586): e279-e289. 10.3399/bjgp11X572472.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
General practitioners uses and perceptions of voluntary electronic feedback on treatment outcomes – a qualitative study
Authors
Maria Laura Lippert
Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard
Lars Bjerrum
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-014-0193-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Primary Care 1/2014 Go to the issue