Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Improving primary health care delivery: still waiting for the magic bullet

Tim Wilson
CMAJ December 13, 2011 183 (18) E1280; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.111673
Tim Wilson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tim.wilson@uk.pwc.com
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

See related research article by Szecsenyi and colleagues at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.110412

It is my experience that few people are short of answers about how to improve health care delivery. The opinions flow even more freely when it comes to suggesting ways to improve primary care.

A recent study by Szecsenyi and colleagues adds to the number of options.1 The authors show that the use of a European-wide accreditation system of primary care practices in Germany led to a significant improvement in practice management across a range of domains between the first assessment and the second assessment three years later.1 Their study should help to convince policy-makers and professional bodies not already doing so to consider accreditation as a means of improving quality. Indeed, many medical colleges have highly developed accreditation systems.

Before we get too excited that the magic bullet — whose existence was questioned in CMAJ 16 years ago2 — has been found, it is worth considering the context in which the study by Szecsenyi and colleagues was conducted. First, primary care practices in Germany were directed by the government to participate in some form of quality-improvement program, so why not the one the authors evaluated? This means that, although ostensibly voluntary, this accreditation process was beginning to look like its tougher cousin, regulation. Second, general practice in Germany exists within the context of patient choice, so having a seal of approval in terms of practice quality might well be seen as a competitive advantage.

One needs also to consider the limitations of accreditation programs, or any system that uses standards as a means of improving quality. Standards tend to look at structural and process-related aspects of health care delivery. The standards themselves, depending on the means adopted, have to be precise. In the program evaluated by Szecsenyi and colleagues, a checklist was used. However, this can cause problems in assessment if a health care provider has found an innovative way of getting the same or better outcomes by using a seemingly noncompliant process. Also, definitions of quality change. For example, the standard used for hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) in the National Health Service’s general practitioner contract in the United Kingdom has likely been too low, causing more harm than good. General practitioners pursuing higher HbA1C levels in patients with type 2 diabetes may miss the standard but provide better care.3

The greatest risk with standards, whether they are part of an accreditation system, a means of payment within contracts, a part of a regulatory process or a part of another system, is that they could completely miss the point. This is especially true of standards within primary care. What is desired of a good general practice varies by country, chiefly driven by whether there is an obligatory gate-keeping function and a registered patient list or not. The relation between excellent general practice and the efficiency of a health care system is well established.4 However, those who set standards do not always have a clear view of why it is that strong primary care supports such efficiencies. There are useful pointers in the literature.5

In the accreditation program evaluated by Szecsenyi and colleagues, the visit was by an assessor who used a checklist. Other accreditation processes use a team of senior peers to make the assessment. This approach has three advantages. First, the visiting team is able to assess whether a noncompliant, but effective, process, such as the one described earlier, constitutes a “pass” — a so-called intelligent assessment (albeit with greater interobserver variability). Second, having senior peers visit raises the social aspects of change; it is one thing to get a cross marked on a checklist, another entirely to have an icy glare over silver-rimmed spectacles. Third, the opportunity for spread is enormous; in my personal experience, accreditation visits of these kind lead to rapid exchange of emails to share ideas and solutions.

The use of senior peers in accreditation programs matches what we know about successful models for change. The world is not short of models for change, but one of the more useful ones that I keep returning to is that by Gustafson and colleagues.6 They emphasize five factors likely to affect change: desire to change; social context; viable alternatives; ability to change; and feedback. In the study by Szecsenyi and colleagues, there were at least two factors increasing the desire to change: the need to participate in a quality-improvement program and a competitive environment. The social context was weaker, although it was aided by the use of a European-wide professionally led program. It could have been strengthened by the addition of senior peers and greater sharing between practices. Viable alternatives came in the form of the clear standards; however, it was not clear whether practices actually had the ability to change. Finally, although the second assessment three years after the first visit provided useful feedback, one might speculate that a third visit would reinforce improvements even further.

Successful quality-improvement programs have generally focused on all five factors in the model described by Gustafson and colleagues to affect change.7 In contrast, policy-makers often focus on one factor, especially if it relates to building tension for change. Efforts to build tension for change often overemphasize the power of financial incentives. Such incentives are important but crude. In a recent study of the effect of pay for performance on the management and outcomes of hypertension in the United Kingdom, generous financial incentives were not as helpful as previously thought.8

Should an accreditation system like the one described by Szecsenyi and colleagues be used in a quality-improvement program? Yes, but the benefits from such a system could be maximized by including assessments by senior peers, increasing feedback, sharing ideas and solutions, and helping those being accredited to improve. Also, a close eye should be kept on the standards being used, to ensure that they are up to date, are driving improvements where desired and are benefiting outcomes that matter to patients.

Key points
  • Accreditation systems offer one option for improving health care delivery.

  • Such systems, however, may use standards that focus too heavily on structural or process-related aspects of health care delivery and risk stifling innovation.

  • The benefits of accreditation can be maximized, for example by having senior peers make the assessment and ensuring that the standards are regularly updated and focus sufficiently on outcomes.

  • Accreditation is a valuable tool and should be seen in the context of a range of efforts by policy-makers and professionals to improve quality.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Tim Wilson is a partner in health care advisory at PricewaterhouseCoopers, London, UK, leading on clinical service improvement and quality improvement.

  • This article was solicited and has not been peer reviewed.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Szecsenyi J,
    2. Campbell S,
    3. Broge B,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of a quality-improvement program in improving management of primary care practices. CMAJ 2011;183:2104.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Oxman AD,
    2. Thomson MA,
    3. Davis DA,
    4. et al
    . No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995;153:1423–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  3. ↵
    1. Lehman R,
    2. Krumholz HM
    . Tight control of blood glucose in long standing type 2 diabetes. BMJ 2009;338:b800.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Starfield B,
    2. Shi L,
    3. Macinko J
    . Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005;83:457–502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Wilson T,
    2. Roland M,
    3. Ham C
    . The contribution of general practice and the general practitioner to NHS patients. J R Soc Med 2006;99:24–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Gustafson D,
    2. Alemi F,
    3. Cats-Baril WL
    . Systems to support health policy analysis: theory models and uses. Chicago (IL): Health Administration Press; 1992.
  7. ↵
    1. Wilson T,
    2. Berwick DM,
    3. Cleary PD
    . What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2003;29:85–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Serumaga B,
    2. Ross-Degnan D,
    3. Avery AJ,
    4. et al
    . Effect of pay for performance on the management and outcomes of hypertension in the United Kingdom: interrupted time series study. BMJ 2011;342:d108.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 183 (18)
CMAJ
Vol. 183, Issue 18
13 Dec 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving primary health care delivery: still waiting for the magic bullet
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Improving primary health care delivery: still waiting for the magic bullet
Tim Wilson
CMAJ Dec 2011, 183 (18) E1280; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111673

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Improving primary health care delivery: still waiting for the magic bullet
Tim Wilson
CMAJ Dec 2011, 183 (18) E1280; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111673
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hot flash: experiencing menopause in medicine
  • Revisiting the concept of urgency in surgical prioritization and addressing backlogs in elective surgery provision
  • Antiviral treatment for COVID-19: ensuring evidence is applicable to current circumstances
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire