Impact of a diabetes disease management program on guideline-adherent care, hospitalization risk and health care costs: a propensity score matching study using real-world data.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a DMP for patients with diabetes mellitus in a Swiss primary care setting. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, we compared diabetes patients in a DMP (intervention group; N = 538) with diabetes patients receiving usual care (control group; N = 5050) using propensity score matching with entropy balancing. Using a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach, we compared changes in outcomes from baseline (2017) to 1-year (2017/18) and to 2-year follow-up (2017/19). Outcomes included four measures for guideline-adherent diabetes care, hospitalization risk, and health care costs. RESULTS: We identified a positive impact of the DMP on the share of patients fulfilling all measures for guideline-adherent care [DiD 2017/18: 7.2 percentage-points, p < 0.01; 2017/19: 8.4 percentage-points, p < 0.001]. The hospitalization risk was lower in the intervention group in both years, but only statistically significant in the 1-year follow-up [DiD 2017/18: - 5.7 percentage-points, p < 0.05; 2017/19: - 3.9 percentage points, n.s.]. The increase in health care costs was smaller in the intervention than in the control group [DiD 2017/18: CHF - 852; 2017/19: CHF - 909], but this effect was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The DMP under evaluation seems to exert a positive impact on the quality of diabetes care, reflected in the increase in the measures for guideline-adherent care and in a reduction of the hospitalization risk in the intervention group. It also might reduce health care costs, but only a longer follow-up will show whether the observed effect persists over time.

Understanding how and why quality circles improve standards of practice, enhance professional development and increase psychological well-being of general practitioners: a realist synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why participation in quality circles (QCs) improves general practitioners' (GPs) psychological well-being and the quality of their clinical practice. To provide evidence-informed and practical guidance to maintain QCs at local and policy levels. DESIGN: A theory-driven mixed method. SETTING: Primary healthcare. METHOD: We collected data in four stages to develop and refine the programme theory of QCs: (1) coinquiry with Swiss and European expert stakeholders to develop a preliminary programme theory; (2) realist review with systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINHAL (1980-2020) to inform the preliminary programme theory; (3) programme refinement through interviews with participants, facilitators, tutors and managers of QCs and (4) consolidation of theory through interviews with QC experts across Europe and examining existing theories. SOURCES OF DATA: The coinquiry comprised 4 interviews and 3 focus groups with 50 European experts. From the literature search, we included 108 papers to develop the literature-based programme theory. In stage 3, we used data from 40 participants gathered in 6 interviews and 2 focus groups to refine the programme theory. In stage 4, five interviewees from different healthcare systems consolidated our programme theory. RESULT: Requirements for successful QCs are governmental trust in GPs' abilities to deliver quality improvement, training, access to educational material and performance data, protected time and financial resources. Group dynamics strongly influence success; facilitators should ensure participants exchange knowledge and generate new concepts in a safe environment. Peer interaction promotes professional development and psychological well-being. With repetition, participants gain confidence to put their new concepts into practice. CONCLUSION: With expert facilitation, clinical review and practice opportunities, QCs can improve the quality of standard practice, enhance professional development and increase psychological well-being in the context of adequate professional and administrative support. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013004826.

Offering patients a choice for colorectal cancer screening: a quality improvement pilot study in a quality circle of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend primary care physicians (PCPs) offer patients a choice between colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients choose almost evenly between both tests but in Switzerland, most are tested with colonoscopy while screening rates are low. A quality circle (QC) of PCPs is an ideal site to train physicians in shared decision-making (SDM) that will help more patients decide if they want to be tested and choose the test they prefer. OBJECTIVE: Systematically assess CRC screening status of eligible 50-75 y.o. patients and through SDM increase the proportion of patients who have the opportunity to choose CRC screening and the test (FIT or colonoscopy). METHODS: Working through four Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles in their QC, PCPs adapted tools for SDM and surmounted organisational barriers by involving practice assistants. Each PCP included 20, then 40 consecutive 50-75 y.o. patients, repeatedly reported CRC status as well as the proportion of eligible patients with whom CRC screening could be discussed and patients' decisions. RESULTS: 9 PCPs initially included 176, then 320 patients. CRC screening status was routinely noted in the electronic medical record and CRC screening was implemented in daily routine, increasing eligible patients' chance to be offered screening. Over a year, screening rates trended upwards, from 37% to 40% (p=0.46) and FIT use increased (2%-7%, p=0.008). Initially, 7/9 PCPs had no patient ever tested with FIT; after the intervention, only 2/8 recorded no FIT tests. CONCLUSIONS: Through data-driven PDSA cycles and significant organisational changes, PCPs of a QC systematically collected data on CRC screening status and implemented SDM tools in their daily routine. This increased patients' chance to discuss CRC screening. The more balanced use of FIT and colonoscopy suggests that patients' values and preferences were better respected.

Use of quality circles for primary care providers in 24 European countries: an online survey of European Society for Quality and Safety in family practice delegates.

Objective: To identify and describe the core characteristics and the spread of quality circles in primary healthcare in European countries. Design: An online survey was conducted among European Society for Quality and Safety in Family Practice (EQuiP) delegates. To allow comparison with earlier results, a similar survey as in a study from 2000 was used. Setting: Primary Health Care in European countries. Subjects: General practitioners, delegated experts of the European Society for Quality and Safety in Family Practice (EQuiP). Main outcome measures: (1) Attendance in quality circles (2) their objectives (3) methods of quality improvement quality circles use (4) facilitator's role and training (5) role of institutions (6) supporting material and data sources quality circles use. Results: 76% of the delegates responded, representing 24 of 25 countries. In 13 countries, more than 10% of general practitioners participated in quality circles, compared with eight countries in 2000. The focus of quality circles moved from continuous medical education to quality improvement. Currently, quality circles groups use case-based discussions, educational materials and local opinion leaders in addition to audit and feedback. Some national institutions provide training for facilitators and data support for quality circle groups. Conclusion: The use of quality circles has increased in European countries with a shift in focus from continuous medical education to quality improvement. Well-trained facilitators are important, as is the use of varying didactic methods and quality improvement tools. Qualitative inquiry is necessary to examine why QCs thrive or fail in different countries and systems. KEY POINTS Countries with already established quality circle movements increased their participation rate and extended their range of quality circle activities The focus of quality circles has moved from CME/CPD to quality improvement Well-trained facilitators are important, as is the use of varying didactic methods and quality improvement tools Institutions should provide supporting material and training for facilitators.

Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: Their origins, spread, effectiveness and lacunae- A scoping review.

Quality circles or peer review groups, and similar structured small groups of 6-12 health care professionals meet regularly across Europe to reflect on and improve their standard practice. There is debate over their effectiveness in primary health care, especially over their potential to change practitioners' behaviour. Despite their popularity, we could not identify broad surveys of the literature on quality circles in a primary care context. Our scoping review was intended to identify possible definitions of quality circles, their origins, and reported effectiveness in primary health care, and to identify gaps in our knowledge. We searched appropriate databases and included any relevant paper on quality circles published until December 2017. We then compared information we found in the articles to that we found in books and on websites. Our search returned 7824 citations, from which we identified 82 background papers and 58 papers about quality circles. We found that they originated in manufacturing industry and that many countries adopted them for primary health care to continuously improve medical education, professional development, and quality of care. Quality circles are not standardized and their techniques are complex. We identified 19 papers that described individual studies, one paper that summarized 3 studies, and 1 systematic review that suggested that quality circles can effectively change behaviour, though effect sizes varied, depending on topic and context. Studies also suggested participation may affirm self-esteem and increase professional confidence. Because reports of the effect of quality circles on behaviour are variable, we recommend theory-driven research approaches to analyse and improve the effectiveness of this complex intervention.

Exploring why quality circles work in primary health care: a realist review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Quality circles (QCs) are commonly used in primary health care in Europe to consider and improve standard practice over time. They represent a complex social intervention that occurs within the fast-changing system of primary health care. Numerous controlled trials, reviews, and studies have shown small but unpredictable positive effect sizes on behavior change. Although QCs seem to be effective, stakeholders have difficulty understanding how the results are achieved and in generalizing the results with confidence. They also lack understanding of the active components of QCs which result in changes in the behavior of health care professionals. This protocol for a realist synthesis will examine how configurations of components and the contextual features of QCs influence their performance. METHODS/DESIGN: Stakeholder interviews and a scoping search revealed the processes of QCs and helped to describe their core components and underlying theories. After clarifying their historical and geographical distribution, a purposive and systematic search was developed to identify relevant papers to answer the research questions, which are: understanding why, how, and when QCs work, over what time frame, and in what circumstances. After selecting and abstracting appropriate data, configurations of contexts and mechanisms which influence the outcome of QCs within each study will be identified. Studies will be grouped by similar propositional statements in order to identify patterns and validation from stakeholders sought. Finally, theories will be explored in order to explain these patterns and to help stakeholders maintain and improve QC performance. DISCUSSION: Analyzing context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) patterns will reveal how QCs work and how contextual factors interact to influence their outcome. The aim is to investigate unique configurations that enable them to improve the performance of health care professionals. Using a standardized reporting system, this realist review will allow the research questions to be answered to the satisfaction of key stakeholders and enable on-going critical examination and dissemination of the findings. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004826.