Performance management, appraisals, and revalidation: quantity analysis and quality control for UK GPs

Davies, Peter; Walsh, Matt; Pollock, Colin

doi:10.3399/bjgp11x588583

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the development of indicators for patients undergoing total hip or total knee replacement, 1 of the 68 indicators stated that for such patients, ‘deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis should be provided for a minimum of 2 weeks after hospital discharge’ 43. In the development of indicators for hazardous prescribing for general physicians (GPs) using this method, 1 of the 34 indicators identified the hazardous use of ‘NSAID in a patient with heart failure’ 44. We therefore followed a similar protocol.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 43 In the development of indicators for hazardous prescribing for general physicians (GPs) using this method, 1 of the 34 indicators identified the hazardous use of ‘NSAID in a patient with heart failure’. 44 We therefore followed a similar protocol.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method has been shown to produce results that have face, construct and predictive validity 4243 Systematically combining available evidence with expert opinion can create quality criteria where best evidence may be lacking 44…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 42 43 Systematically combining available evidence with expert opinion can create quality criteria where best evidence may be lacking. 44 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validation of prescribing appropriateness criteria for older Australians using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo further develop and validate previously published national prescribing appropriateness criteria to assist in identifying drug-related problems (DRPs) for commonly occurring medications and medical conditions in older (≥65 years old) Australians.DesignRAND/UCLA appropriateness method.ParticipantsA panel of medication management experts were identified consisting of geriatricians/pharmacologists, clinical pharmacists and disease management advisors to organisations that produce Australian evidence-based therapeutic publications. This resulted in a round-one panel of 15 members, and a round-two panel of 12 members.Main outcome measureAgreement on all criteria.ResultsForty-eight prescribing criteria were rated. In the first rating round via email, there was disagreement regarding 17 of the criteria according to median panel ratings. During a face-to-face second round meeting, discussion resulted in retention of 25 criteria after amendments, agreement for 14 criteria with no changes required and deletion of 9 criteria. Two new criteria were added, resulting in a final validated list of 41 prescribing appropriateness criteria. Agreement after round two was reached for all 41 criteria, measured by median panel ratings and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, based on the interpercentile range.ConclusionsA set of 41 Australian prescribing appropriateness criteria were validated by an expert panel. Use of these criteria, together with clinical judgement and other medication review processes such as patient interview, is intended to assist in improving patient care by efficiently detecting potential DRPs related to commonly occurring medicines and medical conditions in older Australians. These criteria may also contribute to the medication management education of healthcare professionals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%