Quality of chronic care in general practices in Salzburg, Austria, and South Tyrol, Italy: a comparative process of care intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators to assess the quality of primary care have only been applied on a national or regional level in European countries, and there have been no comparisons between regions of different countries. In the interventional pre-post-study "Improvement of Quality by Benchmarking - IQuaB" (level of evidence: 3), we aimed to improve and compare quality of process care in 57 participating general practices in Salzburg, Austria, and South Tyrol, Italy. METHODS: The intervention consisted of self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles. Quality indicators for eight common chronic diseases (e. g., diabetes) were extracted from the electronic health records in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Based on 19 quality indicators, a supra-regional quality score was calculated and compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A relatively weak baseline performance was identified in both regions. In all three assessments, the median quality score increased in both regions and was significantly higher in South Tyrol than in Salzburg. During the study period the median supra-regional quality score increased from 20.00 to 38.00 in the Salzburg sample and from 47.00 to 79.50 in the South Tyrolian sample. The differences between the two regions were significant at baseline and after intervention (2012: p=0.015, 2014: p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Despite data extraction challenges in Austria, we are convinced that our data highlight real differences in (processual) quality of care between the two regions. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons underlying the persisting differences between the two regions may include: (1) different functions in electronic health records, (2) benchmarking as an integral part of the electronic health record, (3) gate-keeping system and use of registration lists, (4) state-supported quality initiatives.

Are quality promotion initiatives in Austrian and Italian general practices associated with higher patient satisfaction and quality of life? Results from the interventional study 'IQuaB'.

The objective was to assess the changes in quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction of chronically ill patients in general practices in Salzburg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) after implementation of a combined intervention addressing quality of care of general practitioners (GPs). Furthermore, the correlation between QoL/patient satisfaction and quality of care provided by the GPs (measured by a quality score based on quality indicators [QIs]) was investigated. The non-controlled pre-post study involved GPs and patients with chronic conditions. The intervention consisted of self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles. QIs were extracted in the participating practices in 2012 (preintervention) and 2014 (postintervention). Before and after the intervention, a patient survey was conducted including EQ-5D (measuring health-related QoL), a patient participation scale and parts of the European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice questionnaire (measuring patient satisfaction). Mann-Whitney U-tests, chi-square tests and Spearman's rank correlation were applied for statistical analysis. Fifty-six GPs participated in the study. 1,710 patients returned the questionnaire in 2012, and 1,374 in 2014. Mean EQ-5D index (QoL) was similar in Salzburg and South Tyrol in both years: 2012 Salzburg 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.87), South Tyrol 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86); 2014 Salzburg 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.86), South Tyrol 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.86). Patient satisfaction was higher in Salzburg than in South Tyrol at baseline (EUROPEP: mean percentage of best response 61.5% vs. 49.1%, p < 0.000) and also at follow-up (61.9% vs. 49.2%; p < 0.000). No significant correlation between quality score and QoL/patient satisfaction was detected. Thus, the impact of the intervention was not significant within the intermediate time periods analysed in the study. Improvements in quality of care do not necessarily also improve patient-relevant outcomes, which are probably more associated with other factors than with medical quality (e.g. availability of the GP, waiting times and communication-related issues).

Quality improvement in chronic care by self-audit, benchmarking and networking in general practices in South Tyrol, Italy: results from an interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic strategies promoting quality of care in general practice are yet under-represented in several European countries. OBJECTIVE: This interventional study assessed whether a combined intervention (self-audit, benchmarking, quality circles) improved quality of care in Salzburg, Austria and South Tyrol, Italy. The present publication reports the Italian results. METHODS: We developed quality indicators for general practice in a consensus process based on pre-existing quality programmes. The indicators addressed diagnosis and treatment regarding eight common chronic conditions. A quality score comprising 91 indicators was calculated (0-5 points per indicator depending on fulfilment, maximum 455 points). We collected anonymous data from the electronic health records of the participating physicians in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for pre-post analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six GPs participated in the study. The median quality score increased significantly from 177.0 points at baseline to 272.0 points at the second follow-up (P = 0.000). Improvements concerned process and intermediate outcome indicators particularly between baseline and the first follow-up. CONCLUSION: Performance was relatively low at baseline and improved considerably, mainly in the first study period. The intervention investigated in this study can serve as a model for future quality programmes. A customized electronic health record for the implementation of this intervention as well as standardized and consistent documentation by GPs is a prerequisite. Use of a limited set of quality indicators (QIs) and regular QI modification is probably advisable to increase the benefits. Long-term prospective studies should investigate the impact of QI-based interventions on end-result outcomes.

Choosing Wisely: assessment of current US top five list recommendations' trustworthiness using a pragmatic approach.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of sufficiently trustworthy top 5 list recommendations from the US Choosing Wisely campaign. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: All top 5 list recommendations available from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation website. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/INTERVENTIONS: Compilation of US top 5 lists and search for current German highly trustworthy (S3) guidelines. Extraction of guideline recommendations, including grade of recommendation (GoR), for suggestions comparable to top 5 list recommendations. For recommendations without guideline equivalents, the methodological quality of the top 5 list development process was assessed using criteria similar to that used to judge guidelines, and relevant meta-literature was identified in cited references. Judgement of sufficient trustworthiness of top 5 list recommendations was based either on an 'A' GoR of guideline equivalents or on high methodological quality and citation of relevant meta-literature. RESULTS: 412 top 5 list recommendations were identified. For 75 (18%), equivalents were found in current German S3 guidelines. 44 of these recommendations were associated with an 'A' GoR, or a strong recommendation based on strong evidence, and 26 had a 'B' or a 'C' GoR. No GoR was provided for 5 recommendations. 337 recommendations had no equivalent in the German S3 guidelines. The methodological quality of the development process was high and relevant meta-literature was cited for 87 top 5 list recommendations. For a further 36, either the methodological quality was high without any meta-literature citations or meta-literature citations existed but the methodological quality was lacking. For the remaining 214 recommendations, either the methodological quality was lacking and no literature was cited or the methodological quality was generally unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: 131 of current US top 5 list recommendations were found to be sufficiently trustworthy. For a substantial number of current US top 5 list recommendations, their trustworthiness remains unclear. Methodological requirements for developing top 5 lists are recommended.

Improving quality of care in general practices by self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles.

Guideline adherence of general practitioners (GP) regarding treatment of chronic conditions shows room for improvement. Thus, concepts have to be designed to promote quality of care. The aim of the interventional study "Improvement of Quality by Benchmarking" was to assess whether quality can be improved by self-auditing, benchmarking and quality circles in Salzburg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). In this publication we present the Austrian results. Quality indicators were developed in a consensus process for eight chronic diseases based on pre-existing quality management systems. A quality score consisting of 35 indicators was calculated (0-5 points per indicator depending on fulfilment, maximum 175 points). Data were extracted from the electronic health records of participating practices in 2012, 2013 and 2014. A statistical pre-post analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A total of 20 GPs participated in the project. The mean quality score increased from 62.0 at baseline to 84.0 at the second follow-up (p = 0.003). Regarding the individual quality indicators, strong improvements were achieved between baseline and first follow-up, especially in process indicators concerning documentation. Between the first and second follow-up, quality remained in most cases at the same level. The validity of results is limited because of structural and technical problems. Due to the uncontrolled pre-post design we cannot exclude external influences on the results. Nevertheless, the intervention was able to improve measured quality of care. Barriers were detected that should be considered in a possible implementation of quality control programs.

Impact of strategies to reduce polypharmacy on clinically relevant endpoints: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to explore the impact of strategies to reduce polypharmacy on mortality, hospitalization and change in number of drugs. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis: a systematic literature search targeting patients ≥65 years with polypharmacy (≥4 drugs), focusing on patient-relevant outcome measures, was conducted. We included controlled studies aiming to reduce polypharmacy. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated study quality. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies, including 10 980 participants, were included, comprising 21 randomized controlled trials and four nonrandomized controlled trials. The majority of the included studies aimed at improving quality or the appropriateness of prescribing by eliminating inappropriate and non-evidence-based drugs. These strategies to reduce polypharmacy had no effect on all-cause mortality (odds ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.84, 1.23). Only single studies found improvements, in terms of reducing the number of hospital admissions, in favour of the intervention group. At baseline, patients were taking, on average, 7.4 drugs in both the intervention and the control groups. At follow-up, the weighted mean number of drugs was reduced (-0.2) in the intervention group but increased (+0.2) in controls. CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence that the strategies assessed in the present review are effective in reducing polypharmacy or have an impact on clinically relevant endpoints. Interventions are complex; it is still unclear how best to organize and implement them to achieve a reduction in inappropriate polypharmacy. There is therefore a need to develop more effective strategies to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy and to test them in large, pragmatic randomized controlled trials on effectiveness and feasibility.