| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Correspondence to:
Mr S M Campbell, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
stephen.campbell{at}man.ac.uk
Objectives: To field test the reliability, validity, and acceptability of review criteria for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes which had been developed by expert panels using a systematic process to combine evidence with expert opinion.
Design: Statistical analysis of data derived from a clinical audit, and postal questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and practice nurses in a representative sample of general practices in England.
Setting: 60 general practices in England.
Main outcome measures: Clinical audit results for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes. General practitioner and practice nurse validity ratings from the postal questionnaire.
Results: 54%, 59%, and 70% of relevant criteria rated valid by the expert panels for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes, respectively, were found to be usable, valid, reliable, and acceptable for assessing quality of care. General practitioners and practice nurses agreed with panellists that these criteria were valid but not that they should always be recorded in the medical record.
Conclusion: Quality measures derived using expert panels need field testing before they can be considered valid, reliable, and acceptable for use in quality assessment. These findings provide additional evidence that the RAND panel method develops valid and reliable review criteria for assessing clinical quality of care.
Keywords: quality of care; expert panel; diabetes; angina; asthma
Related Article
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2002 11: 204.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Hann, P. Bower, S. Campbell, M. Marshall, and D. Reeves The association between culture, climate and quality of care in primary health care teams Fam. Pract., August 1, 2007; 24(4): 323 - 329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Campbell, D. Reeves, E. Kontopantelis, E. Middleton, B. Sibbald, and M. Roland Quality of Primary Care in England with the Introduction of Pay for Performance N. Engl. J. Med., July 12, 2007; 357(2): 181 - 190. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. D. Mohangoo, M. W. van der Linden, F. G. Schellevis, and H. Raat Prevalence estimates of asthma or COPD from a health interview survey and from general practitioner registration: what's the difference? Eur J Public Health, February 1, 2006; 16(1): 101 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M Campbell, M. O Roland, E. Middleton, and D. Reeves Improvements in quality of clinical care in English general practice 1998-2003: longitudinal observational study BMJ, November 12, 2005; 331(7525): 1121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P Bower, S Campbell, C Bojke, and B Sibbald Team structure, team climate and the quality of care in primary care: an observational study Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2003; 12(4): 273 - 279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S M Campbell, J Braspenning, A Hutchinson, and M N Marshall Improving the quality of health care: Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care BMJ, April 12, 2003; 326(7393): 816 - 819. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S M Campbell, J Braspenning, A Hutchinson, and M Marshall Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care Qual. Saf. Health Care, January 12, 2002; 11(4): 358 - 364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
