Abstract
Objectives To understand how and why general practitioners in quality circles (QC) reflect on and improve routine practice over time. To provide practical guidance for participants and facilitators to implement and for policy makers to organise this complex social intervention.
Design A theory-driven mixed method
Setting Primary health care
Method We collected data in four stages to develop and refine the programme theory of QCs: 1) co-inquiry with Swiss and European stakeholders to develop a preliminary programme theory; 2) realist review with systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINHAL (1980-2020) to extend the preliminary programme theory; 3) programme refinement through interviews with participants, facilitators, tutors and managers of quality circles; 4) consolidation through interviews and iterative searches for theories enabling us to strengthen the programme theory.
Sources of data The co-inquiry comprised 3 interviews and 3 focus groups with 50 European experts. From the literature search we included 108 papers to develop the literature-based programme theory. In stage 3, we used data from 40 participants gathered in 6 interviews and 2 focus groups to refine the programme theory. In stage 4, five interviewees from different health care systems consolidated our programme theory.
Result Requirements for successful QCs are governmental trust in GPs’ abilities to deliver quality improvement, training, access to educational material and performance data, protected time, and financial resources. Group dynamics strongly influence success; facilitators should ensure participants exchange knowledge and generate new concepts in a safe environment. Peer interaction promotes professional development and psychological well-being. With repetition, participants gain confidence to put their new concepts into practice.
Conclusion QCs can improve practice, promote professional development, and psychological well-being given adequate professional and administrative support.
Strengths and limitations of this study
To our knowledge, this is the first published research that explains how and why general practitioners participating in quality circles may improve standard practice and their psychological well-being over time.
The findings can be used to inform practice and policy decisions.
The resulting theory relies on the detail and depth of the reports in the literature and the veracity and adequacy of the information participants revealed in interviews and focus groups.
To mitigate the risk of selection bias if researchers choose underlying theories and synthesise them ad hoc, we used stakeholders’ mental model and programme documentation as our framework for analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/2/1/110
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
MS IDREC Research Services, University of Oxford MSD-IDREC-C1-2015-002
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosure of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. AR works as a general practitioner at Medbase Health Care Centres, a network providing primary health care services in Switzerland. As a member of the committee for quality improvement in the Swiss Society of General Internal Medicine, he supervises and trains quality circle facilitators.
GW is Deputy Chair of the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Prioritisation Committee: Integrated Community Health and Social Care Panel (A) and a member of Methods Group (A).
Funding details This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the pubic, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Contact: adrian.rohrbasser{at}bluewin.ch; phone: +41 79 603 65 31
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript