IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0327508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indicators of high-quality general practice to achieve Quality Equity and Systems Transformation in Primary Health Care (QUEST-PHC) in Australia: a Delphi consensus study

Author

Listed:
  • Phyllis Lau
  • Samantha Ryan
  • Baneen Alrubayi
  • Lucy Bannister
  • Dylan Pakkiam
  • Penelope Abbott
  • Kathy Tannous
  • Steven Trankle
  • Kath Peters
  • Andrew Page
  • Natalie Cochrane
  • Tim Usherwood
  • Jennifer Reath

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to achieve wider consensus on the relevance and feasibility of the Quality Equity and Systems Transformation in Primary Health Care (QUEST-PHC) indicators and measures developed for Australian general practice. Methods: Partnering with eight Primary Health Networks (PHNs) across four states, we conducted a Delphi consensus study consisting of three rounds of online survey with general practice experts including general practitioners, practice nurses and PHN staff members. Participants rated each measure for relevance and feasibility, and provided input into the implementation of a quality indicator tool. Each measure required ≥70% agreement in both relevance and feasibility to achieve consensus. Aggregated ratings were statistically analysed for response rates, means, standard deviations, ranges, and level of agreement. Sub-group analyses were conducted to compare the aggregated ratings between practice and PHN staff, and between clinicians and non-clinicians in the practice staff. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically using an inductive approach. Results: Ninety-four participants participated in Round 1 survey; 61 completed all three rounds. All measures reached the consensus threshold for both relevance and feasibility; 19 were slightly less feasible when compared with other measures. Although in general the participants scored similarly and their agreements were statistically significant, subgroup analyses showed that PHN staff scored feasibility of some measures slightly lower than practice staff (e.g., patients screened for adverse childhood experiences), and clinicians also scored the feasibility of some measures slightly lower than non-clinicians (e.g., patient perceptions of preventative health discussion on unsafe sexual practices). Conclusions: The QUEST PHC suite of indicators and measures have reached consensus in this Delphi study. Whilst the feasibility of some measures still needs considerations, the QUEST PHC suite provides a framework for defining and measuring high-quality general practice to enable reporting to inform quality improvement and alternative funding models for Australian general practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Phyllis Lau & Samantha Ryan & Baneen Alrubayi & Lucy Bannister & Dylan Pakkiam & Penelope Abbott & Kathy Tannous & Steven Trankle & Kath Peters & Andrew Page & Natalie Cochrane & Tim Usherwood & Jenni, 2025. "Indicators of high-quality general practice to achieve Quality Equity and Systems Transformation in Primary Health Care (QUEST-PHC) in Australia: a Delphi consensus study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-25, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0327508
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0327508
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0327508&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0327508?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. Exworthy, M. & Wilkinson, E. K. & McColl, A. & Moore, M. & Roderick, P. & Smith, H. & Gabbay, J., 2003. "The role of performance indicators in changing the autonomy of the general practice profession in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1493-1504, April.
    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. Gill, Michael J. & Naughton, Bernard D. & Field, Megan & Shaw, Sara E., 2024. "Perceptions of impure innovation: Health professionals’ experiences and management of stigmatization when working as digital innovators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    2. Kitchener, Martin & Caronna, Carol A. & Shortell, Stephen M., 2005. "From the doctor's workshop to the iron cage? Evolving modes of physician control in US health systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1311-1322, March.
    3. Nigam, Amit, 2012. "Changing health care quality paradigms: The rise of clinical guidelines and quality measures in American medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1933-1937.
    4. van der Geer, Eric & van Tuijl, Harrie F.J.M. & Rutte, Christel G., 2009. "Performance management in healthcare: Performance indicator development, task uncertainty, and types of performance indicators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1523-1530, November.
    5. Sara Barsanti & Manila Bonciani & Federico Vola & Luca Pirisi, 2016. "Innovatori, indecisi, bisognosi o autonomi. I medici di medicina generale tra integrazione e accountability," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(98), pages 9-39.
    6. Nigam, Amit, 2012. "The effects of institutional change on geographic variation and health services use in the USA," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 323-331.

    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:pone00:0327508. 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.