↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of impact of a practice accreditation program in primary care: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Determinants of impact of a practice accreditation program in primary care: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Family Practice, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0294-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elvira Nouwens, Jan van Lieshout, Michel Wensing

Abstract

Practice accreditation is a widely used method to assess and improve the quality of healthcare services. In the Netherlands, a practice accreditation program was implemented in primary medical care. We aimed to identify determinants of impact of a practice accreditation program, building on the experiences of primary care professionals who had participated in this program. An interview study was done to document the experiences of 33 participating primary care professionals and used to identify determinants of outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as framework for the qualitative analysis. After analyzing 23 interviews saturation was reached. The practice accreditation program is based on structured quality improvement, but only some of its elements were identified as determinants of impact. Factors that were perceived to facilitate implementation of the program were: designating one person responsible for the program, ensuring clear lines of communication within the whole practice team and having affinity with or stimulate enthusiasm for improving quality of care. Contextual factors such as participation in a care group and being connected to the GP educational institute were important for actual change. The accreditation program was perceived to have positive effects on team climate and commitment to quality of care in the practice team. The perception was that patient care was not directly influenced by the accreditation program. Receiving a certificate for completing the accreditation program seemed to have little added value to participants. Practice accreditation may have positive outcomes on quality of care, but not all planned elements may contribute to its outcomes. Both factors in the accreditation process and in the context were perceived as determinants of quality improvement. The challenge is to build on facilitating factors, while reducing the elements of accreditation that do not contribute to its impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 23%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Engineering 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 22 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,112,179
of 13,560,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#700
of 1,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,133
of 231,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,560,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them