Assessment of management in general practice : validation of a practice visit method

BACKGROUND Practice management (PM) in general practice is as yet ill-defined; a systematic description of its domain, as well as a valid method to assess it, are necessary for research and assessment. AIM To develop and validate a method to assess PM of general practitioners (GPs) and practices. METHOD Relevant and potentially discriminating indicators were selected from a systematic framework of 2410 elements of PM to be used in an assessment method (VIP = visit instrument PM). The method was first tested in a pilot study and, after revision, was evaluated in order to select discriminating indicators and to determine validity of dimensions (factor and reliability analysis, linear regression). RESULTS One hundred and ten GPs were assessed with the practice visit method using 249 indicators; 208 of these discriminated sufficiently at practice level or at GP level. Factor analysis resulted in 34 dimensions and in a taxonomy of PM. Dimensions and indicators showed marked variation between GPs and practices. Training practices scored higher on five dimensions; single-handed and dispensing practices scored lower on delegated tasks, but higher on accessibility and availability. CONCLUSION A visit method to assess PM has been developed and its validity studied systematically. The taxonomy and dimensions of PM were in line with other classifications. Selection of a balanced number of useful and relevant indicators was nevertheless difficult. The dimensions could discriminate between groups of GPs and practices, establishing the value of the method for assessment. The VIP method could be an important contribution to the introduction of continuous quality improvement in the profession.

[1]  H. Acheson MEDICAL AUDIT AND GENERAL PRACTICE , 1975, The Lancet.

[2]  T S Murray,et al.  Use of videotaped consultations in summative assessment of trainees in general practice. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[3]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[4]  Y. Leeuwen Growth in knowledge of trainees in general practice : figures on facts , 1995 .

[5]  R. Baker,et al.  What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[6]  C. Davies,et al.  Quality improvement in general practice. , 1997, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[7]  R. Fraser,et al.  Consultation competence in general practice: establishing the face validity of prioritized criteria in the Leicester assessment package. , 1994, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  D L Crombie,et al.  Quality of care in general practice. , 1983, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  R. Grol,et al.  Visitatie van huisartspraktijken : naar toetsing van de praktijkvoering , 1995 .

[10]  C. Salisbury,et al.  The Australian Quality Assurance and Continuing Education Program as a model for the reaccreditation of general practitioners in the United Kingdom. , 1997, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  R. Fraser,et al.  Consultation competence in general practice: testing the reliability of the Leicester assessment package. , 1994, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  R. Grol,et al.  Dienstverlening en organisatie in de huisartspraktijk , 1997 .

[13]  R. Grol,et al.  Werkbelasting en ervaren werkdruk van de huisarts , 1997 .

[14]  R. Baker,et al.  General practice in Gloucestershire, Avon and Somerset: explaining variations in standards. , 1992, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[15]  F. Sturmans,et al.  Competence and performance: two different concepts in the assessment of quality of medical care. , 1990, Family practice.

[16]  P. Groenewegen,et al.  Workload and job satisfaction among general practitioners: a review of the literature. , 1991, Social science & medicine.

[17]  R. Harden,et al.  Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). , 1979, Medical education.

[18]  J. Hart Health Care and General Practice across Europe , 1994 .

[19]  D M Berwick,et al.  Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. , 1989, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  R. Ebel The Practical Validation of Tests of Ability , 1983 .