Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the quality of clinical care provided outside the hospital sector, despite the increasingly important role of clinical generalists working in primary care. In this study we aimed to summarise published evaluations of the quality of clinical care provided in general practice in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. DESIGN: A systematic review of published studies assessing the quality of clinical care in general practice for the period 1995-9. SETTING: General practice based care in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Main outcome measures-Study design, sampling strategy and size, clinical conditions studied, quality of care attained for each condition (compared with explicit or implicit standards for the process of care), and country of origin for each study. RESULTS: Ninety papers fulfilled the entry criteria for the review, 80 from the UK, six from Australia, and four from New Zealand. Two thirds of the studies assessed care in self-selected practices and 20% of the studies were based in single practices. The majority (85.5%) examined the quality of care provided for chronic conditions including cardiovascular disease (22%), hypertension (14%), diabetes (14%), and asthma (13%). A further 12% and 2% examined preventive care and acute conditions, respectively. In almost all studies the processes of care did not attain the standards set out in national guidelines or those set by the researchers themselves. For example, in the highest achieving practices 49% of diabetic patients had had their fundii examined in the previous year and 47% of eligible patients had been prescribed beta blockers after an acute myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: This study adopts an overview of the magnitude and the nature of clinical quality problems in general practice in three countries. Most of the studies in the systematic review come from the UK and the small number of papers from Australia and New Zealand make it more difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care in these two countries. The review helps to identify deficiencies in the research, clinical and policy agendas in a part of the health care system where quality of care has been largely ignored to date. Further work is required to evaluate the quality of clinical care in a representative sample of the population, to identify the reasons for substandard care, and to test strategies to improve the clinical care provided in general practice.

Quality of ambulatory care after myocardial infarction among Medicare patients by type of insurance and region.

PURPOSE: To evaluate use of effective cardiac medications and rehabilitation after myocardial infarction in the ambulatory setting in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service care, and by region. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We surveyed elderly Medicare patients during 1996 and 1997 in California (n = 516), Florida (n = 304), and the Northeast (n = 220; Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania) approximately 18 months after myocardial infarction. We assessed use of cardiac medications and rehabilitation for HMO (n = 520) and fee-for-service (n = 520) patients matched by age, sex, month of infarct, and region. RESULTS: Across all regions, similar proportions of HMO and fee-for-service patients were using aspirin (72%, n = 374 vs. 74%, n = 387), beta-blockers (38%, n = 195 vs. 32%, n = 168), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (31%, n = 159 vs. 29%, n = 148), cholesterol-lowering agents (28%, n = 146 vs. 30%, n = 157), and calcium channel blockers (31%, n = 162 vs. 31%, n = 159; all P >0.07), except in California where more HMO patients received beta-blockers (36%, n = 93 vs. 26%, n = 66, P = 0.01). In adjusted analyses, use of these drugs did not differ significantly between HMO and fee-for-service patients. Substantial regional differences were evident in the use of beta-blockers (Northeast 46%, n = 102; Florida 34%, n = 102; California 31%, n = 159) and cholesterol-lowering agents (California 35%, n = 182; Florida 24%, n = 73; Northeast 22%, n = 48; each P <0.001). Fee-for-service patients were more likely than HMO patients to receive cardiac rehabilitation in unadjusted (32%, n = 167, vs. 22%, n = 141, P = 0.001) and adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both HMO and fee-for-service patients would likely benefit from greater use of beta-blockers and cholesterol-lowering agents. Professional fees for cardiac rehabilitation may promote increased use among fee-for-service patients. Future studies should assess the quality of ambulatory cardiac care in different types of HMOs and the reasons for geographic variations in cardiac drug use.

Waiting times and prioritization for coronary artery bypass surgery in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: To review the New Zealand coronary artery bypass priority score instituted in May 1996, and specifically to determine whether it prioritizes patients at high risk of cardiac events while waiting. The New Zealand score is compared with the Ontario urgency rating score, and waiting times for surgery are compared with the maximum times recommended by the Ontario consensus panel. DESIGN: Retrospective review of patients accepted for isolated coronary artery bypass surgery between 1 January 1993 and 31 January 1996. SETTING: Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Waiting time, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cardiac readmission. RESULTS: The median waiting times were five days for hospital cases (n = 721) and 146 days for out of hospital cases (n = 701). Of the latter group, 28% waited more than a year, 33% had their surgery expedited because of worsening symptoms, and 19% failed to meet the cut off point set by the New Zealand score for acceptance onto the list. Twenty two patients died, 18 on the outpatient waiting list (waiting list mortality 2.6%, risk 0.28% per month of waiting), and 132 were readmitted, 12% with myocardial infarction and 76% with unstable angina. Risk factors for a composite end point of death or myocardial infarction and/or cardiac readmission were: previous coronary artery bypass surgery (p = 0. 001), class III or IV angina (p = 0.002), and hypertension (p = 0. 005). The New Zealand score did not identify those at risk. Excluding hospital cases, 32% had surgery within the time recommended by the Ontario consensus panel. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting times for coronary artery bypass surgery in New Zealand are considerably longer than those in Ontario, Canada. By using a numerical cut off point, implementation of the New Zealand priority scoring system has restricted access to coronary surgery on the basis of funding constraints rather than clinical appropriateness. The score does not add greatly to the clinicians' prioritization in predicting those patients who will suffer events while waiting.