Understanding quality improvement at scale in general practice: a qualitative evaluation of a COPD improvement programme.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of knowledge exists to guide efforts to improve the organisation and delivery of health care, most of which is based on work carried out in hospitals. It is uncertain how transferable this knowledge is to primary care. AIM: To understand the enablers and constraints to implementing a large-scale quality improvement programme in general practice, designed to improve care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of 189 general practices in a socioeconomically and ethnically-mixed, urban area in east London, UK. METHOD: Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with people leading the programme and 17 in-depth interviews with those participating in it. Participants were local health system leaders, clinicians, and managers. A theoretical framework derived from evidence-based guidance for improvement programmes was used to interpret the findings. A complex improvement intervention took place with social and technical elements including training and mentorship, guidance, analytical tools, and data feedback. RESULTS: Practice staff wanted to participate in and learn from well-designed collaborative improvement projects. Nevertheless, there were limitations in the capacities and capabilities of the workforce to undertake systematic improvement, significant problems with access to and the quality of data, and tensions between the narrative-based generalist orientation of many primary care clinicians and the quantitative single-disease orientation that has characterised much of the quality improvement movement to date. CONCLUSION: Improvement guidance derived largely from hospital-based studies is, for the most part, applicable to improvement efforts in primary care settings, although large-scale change in general practice presents some particular challenges. These need to be better understood and addressed if improvement initiatives are to be effective.

Health-care technology assessment: a clinical perspective.

Health technology assessment needs to relate to contemporary questions which concern public health-care systems: how to keep people healthy, how to focus on the needs of those with chronic disabilities and integrate care between the hospital and the community, how to encourage and audit effective teamwork, and how to establish a consensus about what is effective and affordable. Clinicians have an ethical responsibility to practice efficiently and economically, for profligacy in the care of one patient may mean that another is treated inadequately. For similar reasons, clinicians need to play a full role in the management of services. Advice from health technology assessment is vital and needs to be accurate, relevant, timely, clear, and accessible. As well as being concerned about what works, we need also to eliminate from practice what does not. Regular audit and appraisal of practice against the evidence base should be useful in this respect. Alternative approaches to management, such as the provision of care as opposed to aggressive treatments, need to be evaluated, and health technology assessment needs to consider how services are delivered, not just specific treatments.

The view of the General Medical Council.

Information about a patient's health is recorded in order to provide for that patient's care. Most patients will not think about the other uses for their data and many assume that the information they provide will go no further than the health care professionals who have been caring for them. Information collected about patients is essential for developments in our understanding of health and health care. Most patients will be happy to allow their data to be used for these purposes, once this has been explained. Health care professionals have an obligation to ensure that patients know when identifiable data about them are to be used and to get their agreement about making disclosures. We know that this is not easily achieved; doctors, nurses and others providing care are already over-stretched. Patients may be anxious about their condition and treatment. They may not, for a variety of reasons, read leaflets or letters sent or given to them. This does not mean our obligations to respect patients by keeping them informed and seeking their agreement can be ignored. Openness about how health care professionals work and partnership with patients are essential to the continued trust of the public in the professions. The challenge is not to answer the question whether we need consent but rather how we can best obtain it.