To evaluate the appropriateness of potential data sources for the population of performance indicators for primary care (PC) practices.
This project was a cross sectional study of 7 multidisciplinary primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Practices were recruited and 5-7 physicians per practice agreed to participate in the study. Patients of participating physicians (20-30) were recruited sequentially as they presented to attend a visit. Data collection included patient, provider and practice surveys, chart abstraction and linkage to administrative data sets. Matched pairs analysis was used to examine the differences in the observed results for each indicator obtained using multiple data sources.
Seven teams, 41 physicians, 94 associated staff and 998 patients were recruited. The survey response rate was 81% for patients, 93% for physicians and 83% for associated staff. Chart audits were successfully completed on all but 1 patient and linkage to administrative data was successful for all subjects. There were significant differences noted between the data collection methods for many measures. No single method of data collection was best for all outcomes. For most measures of technical quality of care chart audit was the most accurate method of data collection. Patient surveys were more accurate for immunizations, chronic disease advice/information dispensed, some general health promotion items and possibly for medication use. Administrative data appears useful for indicators including chronic disease diagnosis and osteoporosis/ breast screening.
Multiple data collection methods are required for a comprehensive assessment of performance in primary care practices. The choice of which methods are best for any one particular study or quality improvement initiative requires careful consideration of the biases that each method might introduce into the results. In this study, both patients and providers were willing to participate in and consent to, the collection and linkage of information from multiple sources that would be required for such assessments.
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):122-812679509
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2002 Jun;37(3):791-82012132606
Cites: Ann Fam Med. 2003 Jul-Aug;1(2):81-915040437
Cites: Med Care. 1988 Jun;26(6):519-353379984
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543-92348207
Cites: Lancet. 1994 Oct 22;344(8930):1129-337934497
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1995 Jun;85(6):795-8007762712
Cites: Med Care. 1998 Jun;36(6):851-679630127
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1961 Nov 2;265:885-9214006536