Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Wensing

Publications and source records attributed to M Wensing.

45 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

The reliability of patients' judgements of care in general practice: how many questions and patients are needed?

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number of questions and patients that are needed to achieve reliable measurements of patients' judgements of care in general practice. DESIGN: Sensitivity study, using generalisibility theory and real data from surveys of patients. SUBJECTS: 739 patients with chronic illness from 23 general practitioners in The Netherlands. MAIN MEASURES: The reliability coefficients of scores per patient and scores per general practitioner for patients' judgements of nine dimensions of care in general practice. RESULTS: For most dimensions the reliability per patient was 0.80 or higher if three questions were used, but for the evaluation of the "organisation of appointments" and "premises" five questions had to be used. To reach a reliability coefficient of 0.80 per general practitioner three questions and 90 patients, or five questions and 60 patients, were needed for most dimensions. Even more patients or questions were needed for the dimensions "availability for emergencies", premises, and "continuity". A reliability of 0.70 per general practitioner could be achieved if three questions and 60 patients were used, except for availability for emergencies and premises, for which more patients or questions were required. CONCLUSIONS: Surveys of patients can only provide reliable information if the samples of questions and patients are large enough. It is important to distinguish between the reliability of scores per patient and the reliability per care provider, as well as between different dimensions of care. The reliability per patient is good for most dimensions if three questions are used, but a good reliability per care provider requires more questions or patients.

Aged↗
PubMed1997

What makes a good general practitioner: do patients and doctors have different views?

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are expected to be responsive to patients' expectations, but patients and doctors may have different views on what constitutes good general practice care. AIM: To elicit areas of controversy as well as areas of mutual agreement between the opinions of patients and GPs with regard to good general practice care. METHOD: A questionnaire, distributed to 850 patients and 400 GPs, measured which of 40 aspects of general practice care were given priority. A second questionnaire, distributed to 400 different GPs, measured the GPs' perception of the priorities of patients. RESULTS: The priority rank order of all 40 aspects was highly correlated for patients and GPs (0.72), as was the rank order of aspects for patients and the perception of them by GPs (0.71). Nevertheless, when comparing the priorities of patients and GPs, 23 out of 40 aspects differed significantly (P = 0.00125) in their rank number. Similarly, when comparing the priorities of patients with the perception of them by GPs, 23 aspects differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There is great similarity between the priorities of patients and those of GPs. GPs are quite capable of assessing most of the priorities of patients. However, potentially controversial areas of general practice care do exist.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Evaluation of general practice care by chronically ill patients: effect of the method of administration.

BACKGROUND: Although the patient survey has become a popular method for learning about patients' views and experiences, little attention has been paid to the validity and feasibility of different survey methods. OBJECTIVE: A study was undertaken to compare handing out written questionnaires to chronically ill patients who consecutively visited the general practice with mailing questionnaires to chronically ill patients who were sampled from the patient register. METHOD: Patient surveys were performed in eight general practices in The Netherlands, applying both methods of administering the questionnaire to patients in each practice (n = 345). RESULTS: The response rate was 63% in the mail survey and 72% in the hand-distributed survey. The sample composition was almost equal, except that patients in the hand-distributed survey more often reported having 'a different chronic disease.' The item-response for each aspect of care was similar in both methods of administration. CONCLUSION: Patients in the mail survey tended to use the extreme categories on the scale for certain aspects of care more often than patients in the hand-distributed survey, but the overall trend was not significant.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Indicators of the quality of general practice care of patients with chronic illness: a step towards the real involvement of patients in the assessment of the quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a list of indicators of the general practice care of people with chronic illnesses considered important by both patients and practitioners and to identify the indicators that are considered relevant for patient assessment of health care quality. DESIGN: Qualitative study with focus group interviews and a written consensus procedure. SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands in 1993. SUBJECTS: 34 patients with chronic illness, mostly members of patient organisations, and 19 general practitioners with expertise in either chronic disease management or experience with patient surveys. MAIN MEASURES: Aspects of general practice care considered important for the delivery of good quality care that emerged from focus group interviews; the relevance of evaluations of 41 aspects of care for patients explored through the written consensus procedure. Those aspects of general practice care agreed to be both important and relevant by patients and general practitioners were considered to be suitable indicators for patient assessment of the quality of care. RESULTS: Patients and general practitioners differed to some extent in their assessment of the aspects of care that they considered important for quality. They agreed that most indicators of care that related to the ¿doctor-patient relation¿ and to ¿information and support¿ were relevant and therefore suitable as indicators for patient assessment of health care quality. There was less agreement about the relevance of indicators of ¿medical and technical care,¿ ¿availability and accessibility,¿ and ¿organisation of services.¿ CONCLUSIONS: Several indicators of the quality of general practice care of patients with chronic illness were thought to be suitable for the patient assessment of healthcare quality, but other indicators were not, mainly because of reservations by general practitioners. IMPLICATIONS: Qualitative methods can contribute to the selection of indicators for assessment of the quality of health care in areas where scientific evidence is limited or where patients' and providers' preferences are particularly important.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed1995

Implementation of quality assurance and medical audit: general practitioners' perceived obstacles and requirements.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of quality assurance and medical audit has been an important development in general practice. However, the introduction of such programmes does not necessarily mean they are implemented by general practitioners. AIM: A study was undertaken to describe the problems and requirements perceived by general practitioners in relation to the implementation of quality assurance and medical audit in general practice. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with a stratified sample of 120 Dutch general practitioners. Knowledge, acceptance and application of quality assurance and medical audit activities were investigated, and perceived problems and requirements in implementing quality assurance and audit activities were explored. RESULTS: General practitioners in the Netherlands were generally positive towards quality assurance activities, but had little experience of carrying out such activities. The most frequently mentioned obstacles to implementing quality assurance activities concerned lack of time, colleagues' negative attitudes and fear of assessment and criticism by colleagues. Requirements for implementing quality assurance included having regular meetings with colleagues about quality assurance, having information on the aims and methods of quality assurance, having data from other practices with which to compare performance, having support in data collection, in audit in the practice and in setting up local peer review, and having financial support. The most important factor predicting the actual application of quality assurance activities was found to be knowledge of specific quality assurance activities. CONCLUSION: Well-designed programmes for the implementation of quality assurance and medical audit, using a variety of different interventions, have to be developed. Such programmes should include the training of professionals in the concepts and methods of quality assurance as well as the provision of financial support for quality assurance activities.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1994

Quality judgements by patients on general practice care: a literature analysis.

Patient report seems to be a workable method for quality assurance. For the purpose of the development of such a method, a review was made of 40 studies into patient judgements on general practice care. Apparently, many aspects of care are only rarely included in patient report and the patients themselves are hardly ever involved in selecting these aspects. Furthermore, there appears to be a large variety in the methods that are used. The conclusion must be that in the field of general practice care only little progress has been made in the development of patient report as a method for quality assurance.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1994

Quality assurance in general practice: the state of the art in Europe.

Quality assurance' (QA) is an important new development in general practice. In order to describe the state of the art in this field a preliminary survey was performed by the WONCA European Working Party on Quality in General Practice (EQuiP) in 17 European countries. The results revealed considerable differences in the systems and organization of general practice care [such as practice form, list size, the role of the general practitioner (GP), remuneration], which will have an impact on setting up QA. The preliminary findings demonstrated that most countries are only just beginning the implementation of QA. Nevertheless, there are many valuable developments and experiments concerned with the methodology, procedures and structures for it. In order to accelerate the speed of adoption of QA and to avoid the repetition of mistakes, policy makers and GPs from different parts of Europe should study examples in their fellow countries. A clearing house of QA projects in general practice can help to inform them on valuable developments.

Europe↗
PubMed1994

Single and combined strategies for implementing changes in primary care: a literature review.

Doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of traditional types of continuing medical education. Different strategies or combinations of strategies could prove to be more effective for improving the care provided by the general practitioner. For this reason a systematic literature analysis was carried out involving 75 studies of different strategies applied in primary health care. The strategies most often studied were feedback, reminders and group education. Educational material or group education combined with feedback was the combination most frequently studied. One third of all studies could be characterized as randomized controlled trials. Individual instruction, feedback and reminders seem to be the most effective single strategies. The most effective combined strategies appeared to be all combinations with individual instruction and the combination of peer review and feedback.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗