status quo of quo vadis? - KCE
status quo of quo vadis? - KCE
status quo of quo vadis? - KCE
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
46 Quality development in general practice in Belgium: <strong>status</strong> <strong>quo</strong> or <strong>quo</strong> <strong>vadis</strong> ? <strong>KCE</strong> Reports 76<br />
3.3.1.4 Technical support<br />
During the visit and the team meeting, the external visitors used Internet connection by<br />
UMTS technology to present the results directly from the Visotool®-website.<br />
Unfortunately, technical support was necessary in half <strong>of</strong> the visits, due to problems<br />
with logging in to the UMTS network, the use <strong>of</strong> the portable PCs or getting used with<br />
the Visotool website. In most cases, a Belgian researcher could solve the problem but<br />
one third <strong>of</strong> the practice visits required a technical support from the German helpdesk.<br />
Some GPs working in a single-handed practices suggested feedback visits on Saturdays,<br />
which was not feasible because the German support was not available.<br />
3.3.2 Qualitative evaluation <strong>of</strong> the process<br />
3.3.2.1 Field notes and the GP’s appreciation <strong>of</strong> EPA at the time <strong>of</strong> the practice visit<br />
Fifteen field notes were available for review, mostly for visits in Flanders<br />
(N=14).<br />
WAS THE EPA VISIT APPRECIATED AND PERCEIVED AS USEFUL?<br />
Most participants showed a positive attitude towards EPA. They generally appreciated<br />
the visitor and perceived the visit as peer review to evaluate objectively the practice<br />
organisation. The topics most mentioned were the emergency medications, complaint<br />
management, colleagues’ vaccination <strong>status</strong> follow-up (e.g. hepatitis A and B), patient<br />
information on practice organisational topics and fire-safety.<br />
EPA identified unsuspected aspects that may need attention. Some practices already<br />
active in quality development, were stimulated to re-activate or to go on with their<br />
actions. The EPA procedure initiated action by GPs not familiar with quality<br />
development.<br />
REMARKS OF THE PARTICIPANTS<br />
The GP coordinators had to ensure the confidentiality <strong>of</strong> the whole procedure:<br />
personal contacts between coordinators and practices were highly useful.<br />
As mentioned above, one GP quitted the procedure after having received the<br />
questionnaires. Others also found that some questionnaires contained ill-translated<br />
sentences, causing doubt on the interpretation and goal <strong>of</strong> these items for both the GPs<br />
as for the practice visitors.<br />
GPs working in single-handed practices frequently noted that items on practice<br />
organisation were applicable for group practices only. Some items were not adapted to<br />
the local context or out <strong>of</strong> date (for example the use <strong>of</strong> videotapes for patient<br />
information). Some GPs found missing aspects such as disinfectant procedures or<br />
patient centeredness in the consultation.<br />
Some visitors and participants found the time schedule and preparation time insufficient.<br />
Not all GPs were present to check their doctor’s bags. Despite <strong>of</strong> the written<br />
information and frequent phone calls, some GP team members did not have any clear<br />
idea <strong>of</strong> the procedures at the visit day.<br />
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS TO PARTICIPATING PRACTICES<br />
GPs appreciated their personalised feedback report afterwards and reported that the<br />
presentation <strong>of</strong> those data was clear. The visitor helped to understand the data and<br />
explained the background <strong>of</strong> the values <strong>of</strong> the indicator scores. The visitors stressed<br />
that it was up to the team members to decide if a high or low score is relevant to their<br />
practice.<br />
GPs generally appreciated this personalised and secure setting. Several GPs expressed<br />
concerns on the confidentiality <strong>of</strong> the data: they stressed that they would not show<br />
their data to controlling bodies.