The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe. Results of a survey in 26 European countries.

BACKGROUND Peer review groups (PRGs) and quality circles (QCs) commenced in The Netherlands and have grown to become an important method of quality improvement in primary care in several other European countries. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to provide an overview of QC/PRG activities and exemplary programmes in European countries. METHODS A survey was performed in three consecutive steps by EQuiP (European Working Party on Quality in Family Practice), which is a representative association of experts from 26 European countries. The national representatives initially completed a structured questionnaire documenting the number and objectives of QCs/PRGs, sources of support and special programmes in their countries (step 1). In step 2, these sources were used to extend and validate the expert statements. Step 3 studied paradigmatic initiatives in depth. RESULTS Step 1 took place in 2000; the response rate was 100% (26 countries). QCs/PRGs were very active in 10 countries; 16 countries showed little or no activity. Participation ranged from <2 to 86% of all GPs. Step 2 concentrated upon the countries with a high level of activity. Development appeared to be associated with establishment in private practice and the portion of GPs with vocational training. Eight programmes from six countries describing the establishment and the targeting of QC/PRG work are presented as case reports (step 3). CONCLUSION In the last 10 years, substantial development of QCs/PRGs has taken place in The Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Further evaluation is needed to clarify the impact on quality of care.

[1]  R. Grol,et al.  Systems for quality improvement in general practice : a survey of 26 countries , 1997 .

[2]  A D Oxman,et al.  Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. , 1995, JAMA.

[3]  Kumudini Sharma,et al.  [Quality circles]. , 1987, Soins; la revue de reference infirmiere.

[4]  M. Wensing,et al.  Quality assurance in general practice: the state of the art in Europe. , 1994, Family practice.

[5]  R. Grol,et al.  Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. , 1994, Quality in health care : QHC.

[6]  R. Grol,et al.  Quality improvement by peer review , 1994 .

[7]  J. Szecsenyi,et al.  [Evaluation of a training program for moderators of panel doctor quality circles: a progress assessment]. , 1995, Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung.

[8]  I. Ovhed,et al.  A Nordic collaboration on medical audit. The APO method for quality development and continuous medical education (CME) in primary health care. , 1998, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[9]  T. Schofield,et al.  Medical audit in primary health care , 1993 .

[10]  R. Grol,et al.  Between evidence-based practice and total quality management: the implementation of cost-effective care. , 2000, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[11]  R. Haynes,et al.  Evidence for the effectiveness of CME. A review of 50 randomized controlled trials. , 1992, JAMA.

[12]  R. Grol Peer review in primary care. , 1990, Quality assurance in health care : the official journal of the International Society for Quality Assurance in Health Care.

[13]  H. Davies,et al.  Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit , 2000, Quality in health care : QHC.

[14]  M. O’Riordan Continuing medical education in Irish general practice , 2000, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[15]  J A Knottnerus,et al.  Effects of routine individual feedback over nine years on general practitioners' requests for tests , 1996, BMJ.

[16]  J. Søgaard,et al.  Long-lasting improvement in general practitioners' prescribing of antibiotics by means of medical audit. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[17]  R. Baker PEER REVIEW IN GENERAL PRACTICE , 1988 .