Quality clusters in general practice: associations between cluster organization and general practitioners' self-reported benefits

Maria Bundgaard; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl; Jens Søndergaard; Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard; Sonja Wehberg; Line Bjørnskov Pedersen

doi:10.1093/fampra/cmac011

Quality clusters in general practice: associations between cluster organization and general practitioners' self-reported benefits

Fam Pract. 2022 Sep 24;39(5):852-859. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmac011.

Authors

Maria Bundgaard¹, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl¹, Jens Søndergaard¹, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard^{1

2}, Sonja Wehberg¹, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ Research Unit of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws vej 9A, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
² The Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade, 1014 København K, Denmark.
³ Danish Centre for Health Economics-DaCHE, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws vej 9A, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.

PMID: 35302605
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmac011

Abstract

Background: Quality clusters were introduced as a quality improvement concept in Danish general practice in 2018. This new concept anchored quality improvement in local clusters managed by general practitioners (GPs).

Objectives: To describe the cluster organization and GPs' self-reported benefits of participating in them and explore the associations between cluster organization and self-reported benefits.

Methods: A national survey in Danish general practice gathering information about cluster organization (cluster size, cluster meetings, participants, and content) and GPs' self-reported benefits (overall benefit, internal changes in the clinic, and improved external collaboration).

Results: One hundred and eight (95%) clusters and 1,219 GPs (36%) were included. Cluster size varied from 10 to 68 GPs (34 GPs on average). Approximately 70% of GPs reported moderate to very high overall benefit from cluster participation. Most GPs experienced changes in their clinic organization (68%), drug prescriptions (78%), and patient care (77%). Collaboration was reported improved between the GPs (86%), municipality (50%), and hospital (36.2%). GPs in clusters with 3-6 planned meetings per year (odds ratio [OR] 1.9; confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.9), mixed meeting types (OR 1.7; CI 1.2-2.4), group work (OR 1.7; CI 1.1-2.5), and use of guidelines in their meetings (OR 1.8; CI 1.3-2.4) had statistically significantly higher odds for reporting overall benefit of participating in clusters compared with GPs in clusters without these characteristics.

Conclusions: Frequent and active meetings with a relevant meeting content are positively related to GPs' perceived benefits and with improved collaboration between GPs in the clusters. There seems to be a potential for developing collaboration with other healthcare providers.

Keywords: Quality of Health Care; Surveys and Questionnaires; general practice; primary healthcare; quality circles; quality improvement.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Attitude of Health Personnel
Family Practice
General Practice*
General Practitioners*
Humans
Self Report
Surveys and Questionnaires