Quality in primary care Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Radcliffe Medical Press

Journal description

Quality in Primary Care (formerly The Journal of Clinical Governance) is the first European journal devoted solely to the topic of quality in primary healthcare. The journal is concerned with all aspects of quality in primary care and the interfaces between primary and secondary, and primary care and social care.

Current impact factor: 0.00

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Quality in Primary Care website
Other titles Quality in primary care (Online), Quality in primary care
ISSN 1479-1072
OCLC 55061615
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Radcliffe Medical Press

  • Pre-print
    • Author cannot archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
  • Classification
    ‚Äč white

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the current financial climate faced by the NHS, it is important that we reduce the amount of inappropriate referrals made to secondary care specialties. ENT Emergency Clinics are one-stop clinics provided by many UK ENT departments to allow more rapid access to ENT services from primary care. However, many referrals to these clinics were considered to be inappropriate, overloading the clinic and delaying referrals to more specialist clinics. We conducted a service improvement project through introduction of referral guidelines and liaising with local GPs. We carried out an initial audit of ENT referrals over a one-month period, which suggested that 31% (69/225) of referrals were inappropriate. We developed a guideline referral proforma that included six specific conditions and details of subspecialist clinics available. This was circulated among GPs and A&E doctors and backed up by hospital teaching sessions. Two months later we repeated the audit. Following introduction of guidelines there was a significant reduction in inappropriate referrals from 31% (69/225) to 16% (28/179), p<0.01. Despite significant improvements overall, the proportion of inappropriate referrals from GPs remained higher than those from the local A&E department in both Cycle 1 (42% vs.24%, p<0.01) and Cycle 2 (23% vs. 5%, p<0.01). Devising and circulating guideline proformas in conjunction with local education for referring doctors may help reduce the number of inappropriate ENT referrals. This simple and cheap intervention could be used more widely and developed in primary care departments in partnership with local hospitals. Our study also highlights the challenges encountered when introducing new guidelines that affect referrals from doctors in the community. Increasing opportunities for GP trainees to gain some exposure to common conditions presenting to primary care might reduce inappropriate ENT referrals in the future.
    Quality in primary care 04/2015; 22(5):251-5.
  • Quality in primary care 04/2015; 22(5):249-50.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims was undertaken to ensure concomitant usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) in Elderly, in order to avoid upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and ulcers. Reviewing of 386 patients' prescription on the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) Web, on April 2014. Checking who have not been prescribed PPIs with NSAIDs, offering them appointment for prescription and discussion about risks and benefits of PPIs. Re-audit of 390 patients' prescription on the EMIS Web, on July 2014. Exclusion criteria in the audit and re-audit were; NSAIDs usage for more than 3 years, contra-indications for PPIs, and patients who declined inclusion in the audit. In the first audit cycle, a total of 386 patients' prescription reviewed, 23 (6%) patients were not prescribed PPIs with NSAIDs and were eligible for PPIs prescription. Those patients were contacted by post, an appointment arranged for them and prescribed the PPIs. 12 weeks later a re-audit was done, showed that all patients (100%) who are prescribed NSAIDs are prescribed prophylactic PPIs. None of the patients who are prescribed NSAIDs and PPIs concomitantly developed upper GI symptoms or ulcers. The audit increased the awareness of the junior doctors of the importance of concomitant prescription of PPIs with NSAIDs, in accordance with the electronic Medical Compendium (eMC) guidelines, to prevent upper GI symptoms and ulcers. That was reflected in the re-audit having 100% of the patients prescribed NSAIDs and PPIs concomitantly.
    Quality in primary care 12/2014; 22(6):282-284.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Doctors' opinions about quality improvement tools likely influence their uptake and eventual impact on patient care. Little is known about physicians' perception of the comparative utility of various quality improvement tools. We conducted a mail survey of doctors in Geneva, Switzerland (2745 physicians, of whom 56% participated), to measure the perceived usefulness of 9 quality improvement tools. In decreasing order of perceived utility these tools were regular continuous education (rated as very or extremely useful by 75% of respondents), mortality and morbidity conferences (65%), quality circles (60%), patient satisfaction measurement (42%), assessment of the fulfillment of therapeutic objectives (41%), assessment of compliance with guidelines (36%), periodic evaluation of doctors' skills (14%), onsite visits with peer-review of medical records (11%), and certification of office practices (8%). Quality improvement tools seen as most useful by physicians are traditional methods such as continuous education and mortality and morbidity conferences. Methods that rely on the measurement of indicators or that have a judgmental component received less support.
    Quality in primary care 12/2014; 22(6):278-281.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Jordan, despite being one of the most modern countries in the Middle East, postnatal care services are still under-utilized by rural Jordanian mothers. The purpose of this study is to explore, analyse and critique the postnatal cultural health beliefs, knowledge and practices of rural Jordanian mothers. a critical ethnographic approach was used to critically investigate the cultural health issues of 13 rural Jordanian postpartum mothers from four rural areas in the Northeast governorate which is characterized rural populated governorate. The findings showed that rural Jordanian mothers depended on the cultural health beliefs and knowledge to perform the postnatal care practices. most of the rural Jordanian postpartum mothers depended on cultural beliefs and practices as a mode of health seeking behavior, in preference to available government health care services for care of their infants. Thus the rural Jordanian mothers are in need of supportive health educational services to increase their level of health knowledge and enhance the recommended health practices.
    Quality in primary care 12/2014; 22(6):285-293.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Among medication reconciliation studies, varying methods are used to determine which medications patients are actually taking. One recommended approach is to ask patients to "brown bag" their medications for routine office visits. To determine if 'brown bag' practices performed during routine office visits improve the accuracy of provider-documented medication lists. This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted in a university affiliated community geriatric clinic. Forty-six cognitively intact elders who managed their own medications enrolled. Participants self-selected into two groups: 'brown-baggers' (BBs) and 'non-brown-baggers' (NBBs). Three medication lists were compared for each patient: provider-documented in patient's chart (chart list); researcher-generated by post-appointment semistructured interview (point-of-care [POC] list); post-appointment semi-structured telephone interview (telephone list, reference standard). Accuracy of chart and POC lists were compared with reference lists among BBs and NBBs. Thirty-three (72%) patients brought some of their medications to scheduled appointments (BBs); of these, 39% bagged all of their medications. Excluding route as a variable, 35% of provider-documented chart lists were complete; only 6.5% were accurate. Some 76% of chart-documented medication lists contained inclusion, omission and/or dosing instruction discrepancies, with no differences between BBs and NBBs. However, POC lists obtained using a semi-structured interview included fewer inclusion and omission discrepancies among BBs than NBBs (42% v 77%, P = 0.05). In subset analyses by medication type, over-the-counter (OTC) medication documentation was more accurate among BBs than NBBs. Overall, chart lists contained two to three times more discrepancies than lists generated at POC. Most BBs do not bag all their medications for office visits. Chart list accuracy is no better among BBs than NBBs, although patients who 'brown bag' their medications for office visits may prompt providers to conduct a more thorough medication history. Lists generated by semistructured interviewing, regardless of BB status, are more accurate than chart lists. Findings challenge benefits of the 'brown bag' unless coupled with in-depth questioning and processes for transferring information to chart lists.
    Quality in primary care 08/2014; 22(4):177-87.