Effectiveness and cost of different strategies for information feedback in general practice

Health Services Research Unit, University of Warwick.
British Journal of General Practice (Impact Factor: 2.29). 02/1994; 44(378):19-24.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and relative cost of three forms of information feedback to general practices--graphical, graphical plus a visit by a medical facilitator and tabular.
Routinely collected, centrally-held data were used where possible, analysed at practice level. Some non-routine practice data in the form of risk factor recording in medical notes, for example weight, smoking status, alcohol consumption and blood pressure, were also provided to those who requested it. The 52 participating practices were stratified and randomly allocated to one of the three feedback groups. The cost of providing each type of feedback was determined. The immediate response of practitioners to the form of feedback (acceptability), ease of understanding (intelligibility), and usefulness of regular feedback was recorded. Changes introduced as a result of feedback were assessed by questionnaire shortly after feedback, and 12 months later. Changes at the practice level in selected indicators were also assessed 12 and 24 months after initial feedback.
The resulting cost per effect was calculated to be 46.10 pounds for both graphical and tabular feedback, 132.50 pounds for graphical feedback plus facilitator visit and 773.00 pounds for the manual audit of risk factors recorded in the practice notes. The three forms of feedback did not differ in intelligibility or usefulness, but feedback plus a medical facilitator visit was significantly less acceptable. There was a high level of self-reported organizational change following feedback, with 69% of practices reporting changes as a direct result; this was not significantly different for the three types of feedback. There were no significant changes in the selected indicators at 12 or 24 months following feedback. The practice characteristic most closely related to better indicators of preventive practice was practice size, smaller practices performing significantly better. Separate clinics were not associated with better preventive practice.
It is concluded that feedback strategies using graphical and tabular comparative data are equally cost-effective in general practice with about two thirds of practices reporting organizational change as a consequence; feedback involving unsolicited medical facilitator visits is less cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of manual risk factor audit is also called into question.

Download full-text


Available from: John Wilmot, May 20, 2014
7 Reads
  • Source
    • "It is remarkable that the delivery of preventive services in these remote health centres is in most cases as good as or better than reported by North American and UK studies with comparable data. [12-22] Possible explanations may be a recent wider acceptance of the value of evidence-based preventive care, and the strong public health orientation of health workers in the environment in which these trials were conducted. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interventions to improve delivery of preventive medical services have been shown to be effective in North America and the UK. However, there are few studies of the extent to which the impact of such interventions has been sustained, or of the impact of such interventions in disadvantaged populations or remote settings. This paper describes the trends in delivery of preventive medical services following a multifaceted intervention in remote community health centres in the Northern Territory of Australia. The intervention comprised the development and dissemination of best practice guidelines supported by an electronic client register, recall and reminder systems and associated staff training, and audit and feedback. Clinical records in seven community health centres were audited at regular intervals against best practice guidelines over a period of three years, with feedback of audit findings to health centre staff and management. Levels of service delivery varied between services and between communities. There was an initial improvement in service levels for most services following the intervention, but improvements were in general not fully sustained over the three year period. Improvements in service delivery are consistent with the international experience, although baseline and follow-up levels are in many cases higher than reported for comparable studies in North America and the UK. Sustainability of improvements may be achieved by institutionalisation of relevant work practices and enhanced health centre capacity.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2003; 3(1):15. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-3-15 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To ascertain the views of primary care professionals about the current purpose, uses, potential, and workload implications of the statutory general practice annual report. Postal questionnaire survey. General practices in the Northern region. All practices in the region that were singlehanded, fundholding, non-fundholding and with more than five partners, and a one in three random sample of all non-fundholding practices (n = 318). 263 practices responded (83%). The report took a median of 12 hours to produce (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 hours; interquartile range 7-35). The main perceived purpose of the report was to monitor practice activity (165 respondents; 63% (95% confidence interval 57% to 69%)), but 44 respondents (17%; 13% to 22%) produced it only because it was contractually required. Practices included statutory and non-statutory data in these reports and would have liked comparative practice activity information (155 respondents; 59%) and "good ideas" (165 respondents; 63%) fed back to them. Respondents would have liked the annual report used to improve practice development planning (122 respondents; 46% (40% to 52%)), to facilitate audit (115 respondents; 44% (38% to 50%)), and to influence resource allocation (104 respondents; 40% (34% to 46%)). One hundred and eighteen practices (45%; 39% to 51%) would produce an annual report even if not contractually required. Data collected were perceived to be already available elsewhere. Primary care professionals have concerns about the current annual report. They would prefer to collect relevant, standardised data which could lead to better audit, planning, and resource allocation.
    BMJ Clinical Research 11/1994; 309(6958):849-52. DOI:10.1136/bmj.309.6958.849 · 14.09 Impact Factor
Show more