Try the modernized ClinicalTrials.gov beta website. Learn more about the modernization effort.
Working…
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

The Effectiveness of a Nationwide Mandatory Accreditation in General Practice in Denmark (ACIAP)

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02762240
Recruitment Status : Unknown
Verified May 2016 by Frans Boch Waldorff, University of Southern Denmark.
Recruitment status was:  Active, not recruiting
First Posted : May 4, 2016
Last Update Posted : May 26, 2016
Sponsor:
Collaborators:
University of Copenhagen
University of Aarhus
The Danish Institute for Quality and Accreditation in Healthcare
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Frans Boch Waldorff, University of Southern Denmark

Brief Summary:
Accreditation is used increasingly in health systems worldwide. However, there is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of accreditation. The overall aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a mandatory accreditation in general practice.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Quality Control Other: DHQP 2016 Other: DHQP 2018 Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

Accreditation has become a widespread tool for quality control and development, and large resources are spent upon development and implementation of accreditation systems in health care systems all over the world. Accreditation of healthcare systems has met some critique. Evidence for positive effects of accreditation has been called for, and health care professionals have expressed concerns about extra hours imposed by accreditation. However, only few studies have evaluated the effects of accreditation on central items, such as clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. In general, the results from the different types of studies are ambiguous and there are only few well-accomplished effect studies. Hence, only two effect studies met the methodological inclusion criteria of a recent Cochrane review. None of these studies treated general practice. A review regarding status of accreditation in primary care concluded that there is a dearth of research on the nature and uptake of accreditation in this sector along with how accreditation affects outcomes of care, and whether it is an effective method to improve quality, perceptions of care, healthcare utilisation and costs. Two studies provided evidence to suggest that accreditation status was associated with infection control procedures, risk management programmes and quality improvement activities and after-treatment plans. However, in the latter case, post hoc analysis revealed that accreditation was associated with units' organizational contexts and referral sources as well as the nature of the competitive environment. The authors concluded that accreditation and licensing might reveal as much about a care units' institutional environments as about the quality of treatment provided. Accreditation is a relatively new instrument in general practice and its effects on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, general practitioners' (GPs') job satisfaction and organisational aspects must be evaluated in order to assess the overall utility for patients and society. Although accreditation has been implemented in general practice in nine European countries, and in Australia and New Zealand, research elucidating the effects of accreditation in general practice system, is strongly needed. In spite of this lack of evidence for effect of accreditation on clinical and patient related objectives, it has been decided to implement accreditation as a mandatory instrument in Danish general practice.

The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme (DHQP) is based on general principles for accreditation. The model contains a set of accreditation standards as well as an accreditation process. Accreditation has for a longer time period been mandatory in the secondary healthcare system in Denmark, and it has now been decided to include general practice as well. Hence, the DHQP has been adjusted to general practice. DHQP for general practice consists of 16 standards with associated indicators within the following areas: 1. Quality and patient safety, 2. Patient safety critical standards, 3. Good patient continuity of care, 4. Management and organisation. The first practices are accredited in January 2016, and at the end of 2018 all Danish practices should be accredited. An exception is practices with expected termination within 5 years.

Since accreditation is a complex intervention, containing several dimensions and active components, it is of great importance to elucidate these processes and mechanisms that become evident with the roll-out and implementation of accreditation and to examine the possible impact, accreditation may have on health care within primary care.

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Estimated Enrollment : 1900 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Official Title: The Effectiveness of a Nationwide Mandatory Accreditation in General Practice in Denmark: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Start Date : June 2014
Estimated Primary Completion Date : July 2017
Estimated Study Completion Date : December 2020

Arm Intervention/treatment
Active Comparator: DHQP 2016
This group consists of general practices allocated to undergo accreditation scheme in 2016.
Other: DHQP 2016
DHQP for general practice consists of 16 standards with associated indicators within the following areas: 1. Quality and patient safety, 2. Patient safety critical standards, 3. Good patient continuity of care, 4. Management and organisation.
Other Name: Early Intervention

Placebo Comparator: DHQP 2018
This group consists of general practices allocated to undergo accreditation scheme in 2018.
Other: DHQP 2018
DHQP for general practice consists of 16 standards with associated indicators within the following areas: 1. Quality and patient safety, 2. Patient safety critical standards, 3. Good patient continuity of care, 4. Management and organisation.
Other Name: Late Intervention




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Changes in number of prescribed drugs in patients above 65 years in the observation periods. [ Time Frame: 6 months periods ]
    Data regarding Prescription medication is retrieved from Nationwide Medication Database (MD)


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. • Changes in the proportion of polypharmacy patients above 65 years (>5 prescribed drugs) between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 months periods ]
    More than 5 prescribed drugs based on nationwide Medication Database (MD)

  2. • Changes in Daily Drug Dose of NSAID without Proton-pump inhibitor in period between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 months periods ]
    Based on nationwide Medication Database (MD)

  3. • Changes in Daily Drug Dose of sleeping medicine between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 month periods ]
    Based on nationwide Medication Database (MD)

  4. Changes in the proportion of elderly above 75 receiving a preventive home visit between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 month periods ]
    The regional practice remuneration system (RPRS)

  5. Changes in the number of annual controls for chronic diseases between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 month periods ]
    The regional practice remuneration system (RPRS)

  6. Changes in the number of spirometry between periods [ Time Frame: 6 month periods ]
    The regional practice remuneration system (RPRS)

  7. Changes in proportion of practices with a reported adverse event between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 month periods ]
    Danish Patient Security Database (DPSD)

  8. Changes in the proportion of practices with a patient satisfaction survey between periods. [ Time Frame: 6 month period ]
    Danish Patients Evaluation Practice database

  9. Changes in mortality rates between periods. [ Time Frame: 2 month periods from index date ]
    Statistics Denmark



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   up to 120 Years   (Child, Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • General practices working under the Danish Health Insurance at June 2014

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None
Additional Information:
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Frans Boch Waldorff, Professor, University of Southern Denmark
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02762240    
Other Study ID Numbers: NAGEP_RCT01
First Posted: May 4, 2016    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: May 26, 2016
Last Verified: May 2016
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: No
Keywords provided by Frans Boch Waldorff, University of Southern Denmark:
Accreditation
Certification
General Practice
Family Medicine
Randomized Controlled Trial