Research ArticleResearch

Facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental health care

Systematic review

Donald Addington, Tania Kyle, Soni Desai and JianLi Wang
Canadian Family Physician December 2010; 56 (12) 1322-1331;

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental health care as part of a large Canadian study (Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement) to identify and select key performances measures for quality improvement in primary mental health care.

DATA SOURCES CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched, using various terms that represented the main concepts, for articles published in English between 1996 and 2005.

STUDY SELECTION In consultation with a health sciences research librarian, the initial list of identified references was reduced to 702 abstracts, which were assessed for relevance by 2 coders using predetermined selection criteria. Following a consensus process, 34 articles were selected for inclusion in the analysis. An additional 106 citations were identified in the references of these articles, 14 of which were deemed relevant to this study, for a total of 57 empirical articles identified for review. Most articles described implementation of health care innovations and clinical practice guidelines, 5 focused on quality indicators, and 1 examined mental health indicators.

SYNTHESIS Content analysis of the 57 articles identified 7 common categories of facilitators and barriers for implementing innovations, guidelines, and quality indicators: indicator characteristics, promotional strategies, implementation strategies, resources, individual-level factors, organizational-level factors, and external factors. Implementation studies in which these factors were addressed were more likely to achieve successful outcomes.

CONCLUSION The overlap in facilitators and barriers across implementation of mental health indicators, health care innovations, and practice guidelines is not surprising, as they are often related. The overlap strengthens the findings of the limited number of studies of quality indicators. The Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement process for identification and selection of indicators has attended to some of these issues by using a rigorous scientific approach and by engaging a range of stakeholders in selecting and prioritizing the indicators.

One in 5 Canadians will experience a mental illness during his or her lifetime.1 Most of those who use mental health services will seek mental health care in Canada’s primary health care system. A general population survey found that among patients who consulted health care professionals for mental health purposes, more than 35% saw FPs only, 25% saw FPs and other mental health care providers (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers), and 40% saw other mental health care providers only.2 From the perspective of FPs, 1 in 4 people visiting an FP has a clinically significant mental health condition.3,4 While there is a high demand for mental health services in primary care, there are considerable gaps between the quality of services provided and optimal care.5 The use of evidence-based measures (indicators) has been suggested as part of the process of quality improvement.6

Promotion of quality measurement activities related to primary mental health care has taken place in Australia,7 the United Kingdom,8 and the United States.9 In Canada, the Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement (CEQM) in Primary Mental Health Care: Closing the Implementation Loop project was launched in 2004. The goal of CEQM was to improve the quality of mental health care for all Canadians by fostering quality measurement in primary mental health care. It aimed to achieve this goal through building pan-Canadian consensus on a small set of quality measures. The set of health measures for Canadian primary care mental health services was to reflect a multistakeholder perspective and be suitable for facilitating quality improvement. A 3-stage process led to a final set of 30 consensus measures. The results and reports are available online at www.ceqm-acmq.com.

A systematic review of the current literature on the facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measures in primary care was conducted as a subproject of the CEQM. This paper presents the results of that review.

DATA SOURCES

The review focused on 4 main concepts: primary care, mental health, quality indicators, and innovation or change. Four electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) were searched, using various terms that represented the main concepts, for articles published in English between 1996 and 2005. The database search yielded 89 555 citations for all of the combinations of the 4 main concepts (Table 1). The number of citations was reduced to 75 063 citations by eliminating the searches that did not include quality indicators as a search term. A health sciences research librarian was consulted regarding a method for reducing the number of citations, and she recommended that searches with more than 300 articles be removed, because these searches were not successful in targeting a manageable number of articles. This resulted in 733 citations and, after removing duplicates, it was reduced to 702 citations.

View this table:
Table 1.

Results for different combinations of search concepts by database

The abstracts of the 702 citations were printed and assessed for relevance by 2 coders with master’s-level research training (T.K. and S.D.) using predetermined selection criteria. The 2 coders rated 50 abstracts and compared their answers to assess whether they were applying the criteria in the same manner.10 They discussed the discrepancies until they agreed upon a rating. Some of the criteria were rewritten to increase clarity. To be selected as relevant, an abstract had to focus on primary health care (or primary mental health care) and refer to a quality improvement tool or the process of implementing quality measurement, quality indicators, or quality improvement. In the first round, coders rated the articles as yes, no, or unsure, and their ratings showed agreement for 533 abstracts (20 yes and 513 no) and did not agree or were rated unsure for 169 abstracts (κ = 0.540). The 169 abstracts were rated again by the same 2 people, but this time they had to make a forced choice of yes or no. After the second round, the assessment for relevance yielded 671 abstracts with identical ratings (62 yes and 609 no) and 31 abstracts with mixed ratings (κ = 0.775). A professor of psychiatry (D.A) with expertise in performance measurement took the role of a third coder for the 31 tied ratings, and the final result was 83 yes and 619 no.

The 83 agreed-upon articles were retrieved and read, and the 44 articles reporting findings of original research were selected for review. During the first reading, 3 types of articles were identified: those that specifically addressed quality indicators, those that addressed clinical practice guidelines, and those that addressed health care innovations in a broader sense. Quality ratings are a key step in systematic reviews10; however, with so few empirical articles on implementing quality indicators, we included all of them as long as they contained findings of original research. One of the researchers searched the reference lists of the most relevant articles for secondary references, uncovering 106 additional references. After 2 rounds of coding for relevance by the same 2 researchers using the original criteria, 34 abstracts were selected, the corresponding articles were read, and 14 additional empirical articles were added to the review.

Content analysis was used to abstract any text mentioning implementation facilitators or barriers from the selected articles.11 This process was completed by one of the master’s-trained researchers who consulted the second researcher as needed. A separate list of facilitators and barriers was created for the 3 groups of articles: quality indicators, clinical practice guidelines, and health care innovations. Two researchers independently examined each list of facilitators and barriers and grouped them by topic or recurring idea. The 2 researchers then compared their groupings and agreed upon broad categories to fit the data. Category development is a process of understanding and explaining the data.12

SYNTHESIS

The selected articles are summarized in Table 2.6,13–68 The authors of most of the articles were based in the United States (n = 29), discussed broad health care innovations (n = 32), and used solely qualitative research methods (n = 35). Twenty articles about implementing clinical practice guidelines were also found, even though the search was intended to focus on articles about implementing quality indicators and clinical practice guidelines was not a search term. There were only 5 empirical studies of the specific process of implementing quality indicators. The settings of 4 of these studies were clearly primary care, yet the indicators were not mental health–related, and 1 study implemented mental health quality indicators in a community-based mental health clinic. The fifth study was retained, even though the clinic might have offered both primary and secondary care, because we wanted to glean information about implementing mental health–specific indicators. The 5 articles included 1 quasi-experimental study, 1 case study, 1 retrospective audit, and 2 qualitative studies published between 2000 and 2004. Table 3 lists facilitators and barriers to implementing quality indicators, as listed in these specific articles, and Table 4 presents facilitators in the form of a checklist for readiness to implement clinical practice guidelines and other health care innovations.

View this table:
Table 2.

Summary of the empirical articles reviewed: N = 57.

View this table:
Table 3.

Facilitators and barriers to implementing quality indicators: N = 5 articles.

View this table:
Table 4.

Readiness to implement quality measurement checklist*: Read each statement and indicate your response with a check mark. Complete the checklist based on your perspective in the organization. Try to respond to every statement.

The 2 master’s-trained researchers agreed upon 7 broad categories to represent the facilitators and barriers to implementing quality indicators. The categories that fit the quality indicator data were similar to the categories chosen for the clinical practice guideline and health innovation data. These similarities suggest that the same facilitators and barriers apply across quality indicators and clinical practice guidelines as 2 types of the broader class of health innovations. The 7 broad categories that represent the facilitators and barriers to implementing quality indicators include measure characteristics (key attributes), promotional strategies, implementation strategies, resources, individual-level factors, organizational-level factors, and factors external to the organization. The articles about implementing quality indicators are the focus of this paper. A number of articles reviewed provided both their results and rich, detailed information about the experience of implementation.13,15,16,69

DISCUSSION

The facilitators and barriers to implementing quality indicators in primary care are discussed by category and in relation to the innovation and change literature.

Characteristics

The stakeholders’ perceptions of the importance of what is being measured and the ease with which it can be measured are important considerations for selecting quality measures. Much of the variance in adoption rates for both processes and quality measures can be explained by a measure’s key attributes, as perceived by potential adopters. Attributes that are positively related to adoption include perceived benefit to patients, fit with existing skills and resources, ease of testing, face validity, and level of change required to implement the process and its measure. The perceived complexity of an innovation and its quality measure is negatively related to its adoption rate.70,71 Indicators were also more likely to be adopted if they reflected current knowledge, were evidence-based, covered important areas, used reliable and complete data, and represented an “open” versus a “hidden” agenda. An important barrier to implementing clinical practice guidelines in primary care, which reflects many of the above issues, was faced when the measures were originally developed for secondary or another level of care.

Promotion and implementation

Innovations are spread by influences that range from passive diffusion to active dissemination. Diffusion has been characterized as unplanned, informal, decentralized, and often mediated by peers, while dissemination is described as planned, formal, often centralized, and more likely to occur through vertical channels.71 Rogers described 5 main steps that take place before new measures are fully adopted: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation.70

Endorsement of measures by credible organizations, such as a government task force for quality indicators or publication in a respected journal, was shown to facilitate adoption. In contrast, the belief that quality measurement is a threat to professional autonomy or a tool to penalize bad performance is seen as a barrier. This highlights the importance of involving individuals in the early stages of planning the measurement process. Interpersonal communication between 2 or more similar individuals is more effective than mass communication in persuading someone to adopt an innovation.70 Linking quality indicator use to performance incentives was reported to be useful in some contexts. However, the use of financial penalties based on performance areas beyond the scope of professional control is a barrier. Ensuring that all stakeholders share the same perception of incentives is critical for successful implementation.

Resources

The PRECEDE-PROCEED model outlines the steps for planning, implementing, and evaluating innovations that are directed toward improving the health of individuals, populations, or organizations.72 Assessing the need for and availability of resources is vital to the implementation planning process. Dedicated resources such as time, funding, and skilled personnel are enabling factors that make desired change possible.71,72

Individual-level factors

The knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceptions of individuals are predisposing factors that can facilitate or hinder motivation for change. In turn, the innovation decision is influenced by this motivation as well as by individuals’ needs, goals, skills, learning styles, and social networks.71,72 The implementation of quality indicators is facilitated when quality measurement is a personal interest or responsibility of a physician, staff member, or office manager.

Organizational-level and external factors

Organizational structures, culture, and resources are important for supporting the adoption of new processes and measures.71,72 In the context of primary care in Canada, there are obvious differences across provinces in the relationships between government funders, primary care providers, and specialty care providers. Relationships and funding arrangements that support information systems integration and collaboration between providers are more easily linked to quality measures. More specific factors within organizations that were reported to facilitate the implementation of indicators were multistakeholder involvement, board member support, and team agreement on the purpose, importance, and benefits of indicators. Reported implementation barriers included a perceived lack of time to plan and limited communication among professions. Generating indicators was difficult when some services were not documented in the medical record and the responsibility for data entry was not clear.73

Conclusion

The CEQM is an innovative Canadian project developing a consensus set of quality measures for primary mental health care. This review has demonstrated that successful implementation of quality measures can occur but will depend on the interaction of multiple factors, including measure characteristics, promotional messages, implementation strategies, resources, the intended adopters, and the intraorganizational and interorganizational contexts. As we undertake pilot projects to implement our quality measures, it will be important to gather data about the process and the outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors developed the checklist as a part of the Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement: Closing the Implementation Loop project, which is funded by Health Canada’s Primary Health Care Transition Fund.

Notes

EDITOR’S KEY POINTS

  • While there is a high demand for mental health services in primary care, there are considerable gaps between the quality of services provided and optimal care.

  • Promotion of quality measurement activities related to primary mental health care has taken place in many countries. In Canada, the Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement in Primary Mental Health Care project was launched in 2004. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of the current literature on the facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measures in primary care, conducted as part of this larger project.

  • The authors found that successful implementation of quality measures can occur, but that success depends on the interaction of multiple factors, including measure characteristics (key attributes), promotional messages, implementation strategies, resources, the intended adopters, and the intraorganizational and interorganizational contexts.

POINTS DE REPÈRE DU RÉDACTEUR

  • Alors qu’il existe une forte demande pour les services primaires en santé mentale, la qualité des services prodigués est loin d’être idéale.

  • Dans plusieurs pays, on a favorisé la mise en place de systèmes de mesure de la qualité des services primaires en santé mentale. Le projet Amélioration continue de la mesure de la qualité des soins et services de première ligne en santé mentale a été lancé au Canada en 2004. Cet article présente les résultats d’une revue systématique de la littérature effectuée à l’occasion de ce projet, revue portant sur les facteurs qui favorisent ou qui gênent la mise en place de mesures de la qualité des soins primaires.

  • Les auteurs ont observé qu’il est possible d’instaurer des mesures de la qualité, mais que le succès repose sur l’interaction entre plusieurs facteurs, incluant les caractéristiques de l’instrument de mesure (attribut clés), les messages promotionnels, la mise en place de stratégies, les ressources, les intervenants visés et les contextes intra et inter-organisationnels.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.

  • Contributors

    Ms Kyle and Ms Desai performed the literature search and coded the selected articles. All authors contributed to the concept and design of the study; data gathering, analysis, and interpretation; and preparing the manuscript for submission.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Health Canada Editorial Board Mental Illness in Canada
    . A report on mental illness in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2002.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lesage AD,
    2. Goering P,
    3. Lin E
    . Family physicians and the mental health system. Report from the Mental Health Supplement to the Ontario Health Survey. Can Fam Physician 1997;43:251-6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Tiemens BG,
    2. Ormel J,
    3. Simon GE
    . Occurrence, recognition, and outcome of psychological disorders in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 1996;153(5):636-44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Spitzer RL,
    2. Kroenke K,
    3. Williams JB
    . Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA 1999;282(18):1737-44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Von Korff M,
    2. Goldberg D
    . Improving outcomes in depression. BMJ 2001;323(7319):948-9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. McColl A,
    2. Roderick P,
    3. Smith H,
    4. Wilkinson E,
    5. Moore M,
    6. Exworthy M,
    7. et al
    . Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators. Qual Health Care 2000;9(2):90-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
    . Future directions: your toolkit for implementation: implementing a national quality and performance system for the Divisions of General Practice network. Canberra, Australia: Government of Australia; 2005.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Shield T,
    2. Campbell S,
    3. Rogers A,
    4. Worrall A,
    5. Chew-Graham C,
    6. Gask L
    . Quality indicators for primary care mental health services. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12(2):100-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Chisholm M,
    2. Howard PB,
    3. Boyd MA,
    4. Clement JA,
    5. Hendrix MJ,
    6. Reiss-Brennan B
    . Quality indicators for primary mental health within managed care: a public health focus. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 1997;11(4):167-81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Adair CE,
    2. Simpson L,
    3. Birdsell JM,
    4. Omelchuk K,
    5. Casebeer AL,
    6. Gardiner HP,
    7. et al
    . Performance measurement systems in health and mental health services: models, practices and effectiveness: a state of the science review. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2003.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Neuendorf KA
    . The content analysis guidebook. London, Engl: Sage Publications; 2002.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Morse JM,
    2. Richards L
    . Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ballard DJ
    . Indicators to improve clinical quality across an integrated health care system. Int J Qual Health Care 2003;15(Suppl 1):i13-23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Exworthy M,
    2. Wilkinson EK,
    3. McColl A,
    4. Moore M,
    5. Roderick P,
    6. Smith H,
    7. et al
    . The role of performance indicators in changing the autonomy of the general practice profession in the UK. Soc Sci Med 2003;56(7):1493-504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gorrell J,
    2. Cornish A,
    3. Tennant C,
    4. Rosen A,
    5. Nash L,
    6. McKay D,
    7. et al
    . Changes in early psychosis service provision: a file audit. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004;38(9):687-93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Wilkinson EK,
    2. McColl A,
    3. Exworthy M,
    4. Roderick P,
    5. Smith H,
    6. Moore M,
    7. et al
    . Reactions to the use of evidence-based performance indicators in primary care: a qualitative study. Qual Health Care 2000;9(3):166-74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Brown JB,
    2. Shye D,
    3. McFarland BH,
    4. Nichols GA,
    5. Mullooly JP,
    6. Johnson RE
    . Controlled trials of CQI and academic detailing to implement a clinical practice guideline for depression. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000;26(1):39-54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Cabana MD,
    2. Ebel BE,
    3. Cooper-Patrick L,
    4. Powe NR,
    5. Rubin HR,
    6. Rand CS
    . Barriers pediatricians face when using asthma practice guidelines. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000;154(7):685-93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Cabana MD,
    2. Rand CS,
    3. Becher OJ,
    4. Rubin HR
    . Reasons for pediatrician nonadherence to asthma guidelines. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(9):1057-62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cranney M,
    2. Warren E,
    3. Barton S,
    4. Gardner K,
    5. Walley T
    . Why do GPs not implement evidence-based guidelines? A descriptive study. Fam Pract 2001;18(4):359-63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Eccles M,
    2. McColl E,
    3. Steen N,
    4. Rousseau N,
    5. Grimshaw J,
    6. Parkin D,
    7. et al
    . Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;325(7370):941.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Goldberg HI,
    2. Wagner EH,
    3. Fihn SD,
    4. Martin DP,
    5. Horowitz CR,
    6. Christensen DB,
    7. et al
    . A randomized controlled trial of CQI teams and academic detailing: can they alter compliance with guidelines? Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1998;24(3):130-42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Gupta L,
    2. Ward JE,
    3. Hayward RS
    . Clinical practice guidelines in general practice: a national survey of recall, attitudes and impact. Med J Aust 1997;166(2):69-72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Gupta L,
    2. Ward J,
    3. Hayward RS
    . Future directions for clinical practice guidelines: needs, lead agencies and potential dissemination strategies identified by Australian general practitioners. Aust N Z J Public Health 1997;21(5):495-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hermens RP,
    2. Hak E,
    3. Hulscher ME,
    4. Braspenning JC,
    5. Grol RP
    . Adherence to guidelines on cervical cancer screening in general practice: programme elements of successful implementation. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51(472):897-903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Kaner EF,
    2. Lock CA,
    3. McAvoy BR,
    4. Heather N,
    5. Gilvarry E
    . A RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1999;49(446):699-703.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Karuza J,
    2. Calkins E,
    3. Feather J,
    4. Hershey CO,
    5. Katz L,
    6. Majeroni B
    . Enhancing physician adoption of practice guidelines. Dissemination of influenza vaccination guideline using a small-group consensus process. Arch Intern Med 1995;155(6):625-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lin EH,
    2. Katon WJ,
    3. Simon GE,
    4. Von Korff M,
    5. Bush TM,
    6. Rutter CM,
    7. et al
    . Achieving guidelines for the treatment of depression in primary care: is physician education enough? Med Care 1997;35(8):831-42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Nutting PA,
    2. Rost K,
    3. Dickinson M,
    4. Werner JJ,
    5. Dickinson P,
    6. Smith JL,
    7. et al
    . Barriers to initiating depression treatment in primary care practice. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17(2):103-11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Picken HA,
    2. Greenfield S,
    3. Teres D,
    4. Hirway PS,
    5. Landis JN
    . Effect of local standards on the implementation of national guidelines for asthma: primary care agreement with national asthma guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13(10):659-63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Puech M,
    2. Ward J,
    3. Hirst G,
    4. Hughes AM
    . Local implementation of national guidelines on lower urinary tract symptoms: what do general practitioners in Sydney, Australia suggest will work? Int J Qual Health Care 1998;10(4):339-43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Rashidian A,
    2. Russell I
    . Towards better prescribing—a model for implementing clinical guidelines in primary care organizations in the NHS. Clin Govern Int J 2003;8(1):26-32.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Rollman BL,
    2. Gilbert T,
    3. Lowe HJ,
    4. Kapoor WN,
    5. Schulberg HC
    . The electronic medical record: its role in disseminating depression guidelines in primary care practice. Int J Psychiatry Med 1999;29(3):267-86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Silagy CA,
    2. Weller DP,
    3. Lapsley H,
    4. Middleton P,
    5. Shelby-James T,
    6. Fazekas B
    . The effectiveness of local adaptation of nationally produced clinical practice guidelines. Fam Pract 2002;19(3):223-30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Smith L,
    2. Walker A,
    3. Gilhooly K
    . Clinical guidelines of depression: a qualitative study of GPs’ views. J Fam Pract 2004;53(7):556-61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Thompson C,
    2. Kinmonth AL,
    3. Stevens L,
    4. Peveler RC,
    5. Stevens A,
    6. Ostler KJ,
    7. et al
    . Effects of a clinical-practice guideline and practice-based education on detection and outcome of depression in primary care: Hampshire Depression Project randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000;355(9199):185-91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Aupont O
    . Exploring the relative importance of practice characteristics on adoption of a quality improvement program in primary care: identification of conditions accelerating dissemination of guideline concordant care for depression. 2001. [doctoral thesis]. Boston, MA: Brandeis University;.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Benjamin S,
    2. Seaman M
    . Applying continuous quality improvement and human performance technology to primary health care in Bahrain. Health Care Superv 1998;17(1):62-71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Bentz CJ,
    2. Davis N,
    3. Bayley B
    . The feasibility of paper-based tracking codes and electronic medical record systems to monitor tobacco-use assessment and intervention in an Individual Practice Association (IPA) Model health maintenance organization (HMO). Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4(Suppl 1):S9-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Brown DS,
    2. Church L,
    3. Heywood T,
    4. Hills JF,
    5. McCarthy S,
    6. Serway C
    . Lessons in redesigning a quality program across the continuum. J Healthc Qual 2003;25(1):36-42, 50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Byrne MM,
    2. Charns MP,
    3. Parker VA,
    4. Meterko MM,
    5. Wray NP
    . The effects of organization on medical utilization: an analysis of service line organization. Med Care 2004;42(1):28-37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Campbell SM,
    2. Sheaff R,
    3. Sibbald B,
    4. Marshall MN,
    5. Pickard S,
    6. Gask L,
    7. et al
    . Implementing clinical governance in English primary care groups/trusts: reconciling quality improvement and quality assurance. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11(1):9-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Cohen D,
    2. McDaniel RR Jr.,
    3. Crabtree BF,
    4. Ruhe MC,
    5. Weyer SM,
    6. Tallia A,
    7. et al
    . A practice change model for quality improvement in primary care practice. J Healthc Manag 2004;49(3):155-68.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cox S,
    2. Wilcock P,
    3. Young J
    . Improving the repeat prescribing process in a busy general practice. A study using continuous quality improvement methodology. Qual Health Care 1999;8(2):119-25.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  45. 45.↵
    1. Earnest MP,
    2. Grimm SM,
    3. Malmgren MA,
    4. Martin BA,
    5. Meehan M,
    6. Potter MB,
    7. et al
    . Quality improvement in an integrated urban healthcare system: a necessary journey. Clin Perform Qual Health Care 1998;6(4):193-200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Feifer C,
    2. Nocella K,
    3. DeArtola I,
    4. Rowden S,
    5. Morrison S
    . Self-managing teams: a strategy for quality improvement. Top Health Inf Manage 2003;24(1):21-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Fischer LR,
    2. Solberg LI,
    3. Kottke TE
    . Quality improvement in primary care clinics. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1998;24(7):361-70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Frijling B,
    2. Hulscher ME,
    3. van Leest LA,
    4. Braspenning JC,
    5. van den Hoogen H,
    6. Drenthen AJ,
    7. et al
    . Multifaceted support to improve preventive cardiovascular care: a nationwide, controlled trial in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53(497):934-41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Gillespie R,
    2. Florin D,
    3. Gillam S
    . How is patient-centred care understood by the clinical, managerial and lay stakeholders responsible for promoting this agenda? Health Expect 2004;7(2):142-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Dickey B,
    2. Sederer LI
    1. Hermann RC,
    2. Erickson P,
    3. Joseph R,
    4. Bor DH
    . Improving the detection of mental disorders by primary care clinicians. In: Dickey B, Sederer LI, editors. Improving mental health care: commitment to quality. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc; 2001. p. 285-95.
  51. 51.↵
    1. Hogg W,
    2. Baskerville N,
    3. Nykiforuk C,
    4. Mallen D
    . Improved preventive care in family practices with outreach facilitation: understanding success and failure. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7(4):195-201.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Holden J
    . St Helens and Knowsley MAAG 1991–2001: were we effective? J Clin Governance 2002;10(3):139-49.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Jackson S,
    2. Bircher R
    . Transforming a run down general practice into a leading edge primary care organisation with the help of the EFQM excellence model. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv 2002;15(6–7):255-67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. John A,
    2. Enderby P,
    3. Hughes A,
    4. Petheram B
    . Benchmarking can facilitate the sharing of information on outcomes of care. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2001;36(Suppl):385-90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Knox AB,
    2. Underbaake G,
    3. McBride PE,
    4. Mejicano GC
    . Organization development strategies for continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2001;21(1):15-23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Korsen N,
    2. Scott P,
    3. Dietrich AJ,
    4. Oxman T
    . Implementing an office system to improve primary care management of depression. Psychiatr Q 2003;74(1):45-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Ledlow GR,
    2. Bradshaw DM
    . Animated simulation: a valuable decision support tool for practice improvement. J Healthc Manag 1999;44(2):91-101.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Lövgren G,
    2. Aström G,
    3. Engström B
    . A care policy and its implementation. Int J Nurs Pract 2001;7(2):92-103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Magnan S,
    2. Solberg LI,
    3. Giles K,
    4. Kottke TE,
    5. Wheeler JW
    . Primary care, process improvement, and turmoil. J Ambul Care Manage 1997;20(4):32-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Marshall M,
    2. Sheaff R,
    3. Rogers A,
    4. Campbell S,
    5. Halliwell S,
    6. Pickard S,
    7. et al
    . A qualitative study of the cultural changes in primary care organisations needed to implement clinical governance. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52(481):641-5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Nemeth LS
    . Implementing change for effective outcomes. Outcomes Manag 2003;7(3):134-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Rubenstein LV,
    2. Parker LE,
    3. Meredith LS,
    4. Altschuler A,
    5. dePillis E,
    6. Hernandez J,
    7. et al
    . Understanding team-based quality improvement for depression in primary care. Health Serv Res 2002;37(4):1009-29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Solberg LI,
    2. Korsen N,
    3. Oxman TE,
    4. Fischer LR,
    5. Bartels S
    . The need for a system in the care of depression. J Fam Pract 1999;48(12):973-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Tobin M,
    2. Norris G
    . Mental health and general practice: improving linkages using a total quality management approach. Aust Health Rev 1998;21(2):100-10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Townes PG Jr.,
    2. Benson DS,
    3. Johnston P
    . Apollo 11: an experiential model for team-based transformational change. J Healthc Qual 2000;22(5):23-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Willcocks S
    . Developing the effectiveness of primary care organisations in the UK National Health Service. A case study. J Health Organ Manag 2003;17(3):194-209.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Zapka J,
    2. Goins KV,
    3. Pbert L,
    4. Ockene JK
    . Translating efficacy research to effectiveness studies in practice: lessons from research to promote smoking cessation in community health centers. Health Promot Pract 2004;5(3):245-55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. Zomalt GD
    . Implementation of continuous quality improvement in a community mental health care centre [dissertation]. San Diego, CA: University of San Diego; 1997.
  69. 69.↵
    1. McColl A,
    2. Roderick P,
    3. Gabbay J,
    4. Smith H,
    5. Moore M
    . Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach. BMJ 1998;317(7169):1354-60.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Rogers EM
    . Diffusion of innovations. Toronto, ON: The Free Press; 1995.
  71. 71.↵
    1. Greenhalgh T,
    2. Robert G,
    3. Macfarlane F,
    4. Bate P,
    5. Kyriakidou O
    . Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82(4):581-629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Green LW,
    2. Kreuter MW
    . Health promotion and planning: an educational and environmental approach. 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield; 1991.
  73. 73.↵
    1. Rashidian A,
    2. Eccles MP,
    3. Russell I
    . Falling on stony ground? A qualitative study of implementation of clinical guidelines’ prescribing recommendations in primary care. Health Policy 2008;85(2):148-61. Epub 2007 Sep 4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Respond to this article
Facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental health care
Donald Addington, Tania Kyle, Soni Desai, JianLi Wang
Canadian Family Physician Dec 2010, 56 (12) 1322-1331;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section