ABSTRACT
Our aim was to develop a tool to identify specific features of the business and financial management of practices that facilitate better quality care for chronic illness in primary care. Domains of management were identified, resulting in the development of a structured interview tool that was administered in 97 primary care practices in Australia. Interview items were screened and subjected to factor analysis, subscales identified and the overall model fit determined. The instrument's validity was assessed against another measure of quality of care. Analysis provided a four-factor solution containing 21 items, which explained 42.5% of the variance in the total scores. The factors related to administrative processes, human resources, marketing analysis and business development. All scores increased significantly with practice size. The business development subscale and total score were higher for rural practices. There was a significant correlation between the business development subscale and quality of care. The indicators of business and financial management in the final tool appear to be useful predictors of the quality of care. The instrument may help inform policy regarding the structure of general practice and implementation of a systems approach to chronic illness care. It can provide information to practices about areas for further development.
Subject(s)
Chronic Disease/therapy , General Practice/organization & administration , Practice Management, Medical , Quality of Health Care , Australia , Humans , Interviews as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether systematic asthma care involving a register-recall system, postcard prompts for review, and education for general practitioners and staff in Australian general practice improves the quality of care and health outcomes for adult patients with moderate to severe asthma. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cluster randomised controlled trial in 40 general practices in urban and rural South Australia and New South Wales over the 2 years 2004 and 2005; practices were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. PARTICIPANTS: 565 adult patients of these randomly allocated practices who had doctor-diagnosed moderate to severe asthma and were taking inhaled corticosteroids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical asthma indicators, quality of care, acceptability of the intervention to patients, quality of life, and asthma self-management skills at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: Although 46% of patients in the intervention group practices responded to the postcard prompts, only 32% actually attended for their asthma review. At 12 months, there was a statistically significant difference in provision of written asthma action plans (rate ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.5; P = 0.04) for intervention group patients compared with control group patients; there was no significant difference in other indicators. CONCLUSION: We found little objective evidence of improvement in patient management and outcomes resulting from a systematic model of asthma care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000091606.
Subject(s)
Asthma/therapy , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Australia , Family Practice , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/organization & administration , Quality of Health Care , Quality of Life , Self Care , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To study the work satisfaction of general practice staff, the differences between types of staff, and the individual and organisational factors associated with work satisfaction. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional multipractice study based on a self-completed job satisfaction survey of 626 practice staff in 96 general practices in Australia between 16 December 2003 and 8 October 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Job satisfaction scores for all staff and for general practitioners alone; relationship between job satisfaction and the team climate, practice size, particular jobs within practices, demographic characteristics of participants, and geographical location of practices. RESULTS: The response rate was 65%. Job satisfaction was high, with a mean score of 5.66 (95% CI, 5.60-5.72). Multilevel analysis showed that all general practice staff were highly satisfied if they worked in a practice with a good team climate. Practice managers reported the highest satisfaction with their work. Practice size and individual characteristics such as the sex of the participant were unrelated to job satisfaction. GPs tended to have lower satisfaction than other staff in relation to income, recognition for good work and hours of work. Rural GPs were more satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Most general practice staff are satisfied with their work. Facilitating teamwork may be a key strategy for both recruitment and retention of the general practice workforce, especially staff who are not GPs.
