一般实践规模决定可选活动的参与:国家初级保健系统的横断面分析

D. Mackay, G. Watt
{"title":"一般实践规模决定可选活动的参与:国家初级保健系统的横断面分析","authors":"D. Mackay, G. Watt","doi":"10.1017/S1463423610000058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background There is widespread, unexplained variation in activity and outcome between general practices. Aim To explore the relationship between practice size and participation in optional activities, including the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Design of study Cross-sectional analyses of routinely available data on practice characteristics, QOF performance and optional activities including undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, research, enhanced clinical data collection and service development. Setting All 1031 general practices were located in mainland Scotland. Results The most popular optional activity was undergraduate medical teaching, which involved 41% of all general practices. About a third of practices took part in postgraduate general practitioner training (29%), research (33%), enhanced clinical data collection through the Scottish Programme for Improving Clinical Effectiveness (31%) and the activities of the Scottish Primary Care Collaborative (33%). The most important driver of the number of activities undertaken by a practice is size with single handed, small and medium sized practices all undertaking a significantly lower number of activities than larger practices (P < 0.001). Deprivation had no overall effect, but was associated with lower rates of participation in postgraduate training. The average number of points achieved in the QOF ranged from 961 by the 18% of practices taking part in no optional activities, to 973 by 29% of practices taking part in one activity, 984 by 25% of practices taking part in two activities and 985 in 28% of practices taking part in three or more activities. Single handed practices in urban areas taking part in three or more additional activities had similar QOF point totals to larger practices taking part in three or more activities, and achieved 44 more QOF points than urban single-handed practices taking part in less than two additional activities. Conclusions Practice size is strongly related to participation in optional activities. There is a small but significant relationship between the practice size and number of QOF points achieved by practices taking part in less than two additional activities. Participation in optional activities is a possible indicator of cultural and organisational factors within practices, which constrain the volume and quality of services, which they are able to provide.","PeriodicalId":20471,"journal":{"name":"Primary Health Care Research &amp; Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"General practice size determines participation in optional activities: cross-sectional analysis of a national primary care system\",\"authors\":\"D. Mackay, G. Watt\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1463423610000058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background There is widespread, unexplained variation in activity and outcome between general practices. Aim To explore the relationship between practice size and participation in optional activities, including the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Design of study Cross-sectional analyses of routinely available data on practice characteristics, QOF performance and optional activities including undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, research, enhanced clinical data collection and service development. Setting All 1031 general practices were located in mainland Scotland. Results The most popular optional activity was undergraduate medical teaching, which involved 41% of all general practices. About a third of practices took part in postgraduate general practitioner training (29%), research (33%), enhanced clinical data collection through the Scottish Programme for Improving Clinical Effectiveness (31%) and the activities of the Scottish Primary Care Collaborative (33%). The most important driver of the number of activities undertaken by a practice is size with single handed, small and medium sized practices all undertaking a significantly lower number of activities than larger practices (P < 0.001). Deprivation had no overall effect, but was associated with lower rates of participation in postgraduate training. The average number of points achieved in the QOF ranged from 961 by the 18% of practices taking part in no optional activities, to 973 by 29% of practices taking part in one activity, 984 by 25% of practices taking part in two activities and 985 in 28% of practices taking part in three or more activities. Single handed practices in urban areas taking part in three or more additional activities had similar QOF point totals to larger practices taking part in three or more activities, and achieved 44 more QOF points than urban single-handed practices taking part in less than two additional activities. Conclusions Practice size is strongly related to participation in optional activities. There is a small but significant relationship between the practice size and number of QOF points achieved by practices taking part in less than two additional activities. Participation in optional activities is a possible indicator of cultural and organisational factors within practices, which constrain the volume and quality of services, which they are able to provide.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary Health Care Research &amp; Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary Health Care Research &amp; Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423610000058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Health Care Research &amp; Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423610000058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

背景:不同的常规做法在活动和结果上存在广泛的、无法解释的差异。目的探讨实践规模与参与可选活动的关系,包括质量和结果框架(QOF)。研究设计对实践特征、QOF绩效和选修活动(包括本科教学、研究生培养、研究、加强临床数据收集和服务开发)的常规可用数据进行横断面分析。所有1031个全科诊所都位于苏格兰大陆。结果本科医学教学是最受欢迎的选修活动,占全科实习的41%。大约三分之一的诊所参加了研究生全科医生培训(29%)、研究(33%)、通过苏格兰提高临床有效性方案加强临床数据收集(31%)和苏格兰初级保健协作组织的活动(33%)。实践所承担的活动数量的最重要驱动因素是单手操作的规模,小型和中型的实践所承担的活动数量明显低于大型实践(P < 0.001)。贫困对整体没有影响,但与较低的研究生培训参与率有关。在QOF中取得的平均分数由不参加可选活动(18%)至参加一项活动(973)(29%)、参加两项活动(984)(25%)及参加三项或以上活动(28%)(985)不等。在城市地区参加三个或更多额外活动的单手实践与参加三个或更多活动的大型实践具有相似的QOF积分,并且比参加少于两个额外活动的城市单手实践获得44个以上的QOF积分。结论:实践规模与参与选修活动密切相关。实践规模和参加少于两个额外活动的实践所获得的QOF点数之间存在很小但很重要的关系。参加可选活动可能是实践中文化和组织因素的一个指标,这些因素限制了他们能够提供的服务的数量和质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
General practice size determines participation in optional activities: cross-sectional analysis of a national primary care system
Background There is widespread, unexplained variation in activity and outcome between general practices. Aim To explore the relationship between practice size and participation in optional activities, including the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Design of study Cross-sectional analyses of routinely available data on practice characteristics, QOF performance and optional activities including undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, research, enhanced clinical data collection and service development. Setting All 1031 general practices were located in mainland Scotland. Results The most popular optional activity was undergraduate medical teaching, which involved 41% of all general practices. About a third of practices took part in postgraduate general practitioner training (29%), research (33%), enhanced clinical data collection through the Scottish Programme for Improving Clinical Effectiveness (31%) and the activities of the Scottish Primary Care Collaborative (33%). The most important driver of the number of activities undertaken by a practice is size with single handed, small and medium sized practices all undertaking a significantly lower number of activities than larger practices (P < 0.001). Deprivation had no overall effect, but was associated with lower rates of participation in postgraduate training. The average number of points achieved in the QOF ranged from 961 by the 18% of practices taking part in no optional activities, to 973 by 29% of practices taking part in one activity, 984 by 25% of practices taking part in two activities and 985 in 28% of practices taking part in three or more activities. Single handed practices in urban areas taking part in three or more additional activities had similar QOF point totals to larger practices taking part in three or more activities, and achieved 44 more QOF points than urban single-handed practices taking part in less than two additional activities. Conclusions Practice size is strongly related to participation in optional activities. There is a small but significant relationship between the practice size and number of QOF points achieved by practices taking part in less than two additional activities. Participation in optional activities is a possible indicator of cultural and organisational factors within practices, which constrain the volume and quality of services, which they are able to provide.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信