IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0314360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of a multi-domain electronic feedback report on the performance of quality indicators for chronic conditions: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial in general practice

Author

Listed:
  • Levy Jäger
  • Stefan Markun
  • Thomas Grischott
  • Oliver Senn
  • Thomas Rosemann
  • Jakob M Burgstaller

Abstract

Background: Chronic conditions are a significant public health concern due to their rising prevalence, association with high mortality, and substantial healthcare costs. General practitioners play a crucial role in managing these conditions, and quality indicators are essential tools for assessing the quality of care. Electronic feedback reports incorporating quality indicator performance have shown promise in improving care quality. However, most studies have focused on single conditions or link feedback to financial incentives, which may not sustain long-term practice changes. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-condition electronic feedback reports on quality indicator performance in Swiss general practice without financial incentives. Methods: This randomized controlled trial involves general practitioners enrolled in the FIRE project, a database of electronic medical records from Swiss primary care. Participants are randomized to receive either a plain feedback report or a comprehensive quality indicator -specific feedback report bi-monthly for 12 months. The plain feedback report contains descriptive summaries of practice activities, while the quality indicator-specific feedback report includes performance data on 14 quality indicators across cardiovascular, endocrine, pulmonary, and renal domains. The quality indicators were selected in multi-step process involving review of the literature and clinical guidelines, domain expert consultations, and a panel discussion with general practitioners. The primary study objective is to compare the effectiveness of the quality indicator-specific feedback report and of the plain feedback report with respect to the performance of the selected quality indicators. Conclusion: The study addresses a critical gap by evaluating a multi-condition feedback report without financial incentives. Its findings can inform future health policies and strategies, in line with national and international initiatives that promote or even require the implementation of quality measurement activities in general practice. Trial registration: Trial registry: ISRCTN. Registration number: ISRCTN10637092, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10637092. Registered January 9, 2024.

Suggested Citation

  • Levy Jäger & Stefan Markun & Thomas Grischott & Oliver Senn & Thomas Rosemann & Jakob M Burgstaller, 2024. "The effectiveness of a multi-domain electronic feedback report on the performance of quality indicators for chronic conditions: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial in general practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314360
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314360
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314360&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0314360?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milstein, Ricarda & Blankart, Carl Rudolf, 2016. "The Health Care Strengthening Act: The next level of integrated care in Germany," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(5), pages 445-451.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Livio Garattini & Marco Badinella Martini & Alessandro Nobili, 2022. "Integrated Care in Europe: Time to Get it Together?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 145-147, March.
    2. Susann May & Dunja Bruch & Felix Muehlensiepen & Yuriy Ignatyev & Edmund Neugebauer & Cecile Ronckers & Sebastian von Peter, 2022. "Physicians’ Perspectives on the Implementation of the Second Opinion Directive in Germany—An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Andree Ehlert & Dirk Oberschachtsiek, 2019. "Why do German physicians reject managed care?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 87-99, January.
    4. Eva Kesternich & Olaf Rank, 2022. "Beyond patient-sharing: Comparing physician- and patient-induced networks," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 498-514, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.