Being the best at something doesn’t
necessarily mean there is no more room for improvement. Take Europe’s
healthcare systems: with most national schemes being ranked among the
World Health Report’s top 30, you would think our patients are the
happiest in the world. But is this really the case?
This question was at the centre of a study carried out by
researchers under the QUALICOPC project and recently published by the
World Health Organisation. Together they surveyed some 69 201 patients
from 31 European countries plus Australia, Canada and New Zealand – all
affected by diseases requiring long term management. The patients were
asked to share their latest experience with a general practitioner by
rating the service provided according to five criteria:
accessibility/availability, continuity, comprehensiveness (whether the
practitioner asked his patient about additional problems), patient
involvement and doctor-patient communication.
With this data, the team aimed to find out whether there is still a
potential for improvement in some of the surveyed countries. This
potential was calculated by multiplying the proportion of negative
patient experiences with the mean importance score in each country.
Scores were then divided into low, medium and high improvement
potential, and pair-wise correlations were made between improvement
scores and three dimensions of the structure of primary care –
governance, economic conditions and workforce development.
The results led to the overall finding that ‘accessibility and
continuity of care show relatively low potential for improvement, while
in many countries comprehensiveness was indicated to be a priority
area.’ Nine countries had a moderate level of improvement potential for
patient involvement in decision-making about treatment, and all
countries performed well on doctor-patient communication.
Among all surveyed countries, eight came out with a low improvement
potential in all features, which indicated positive patient experiences.
These are Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Australia,
Canada and New Zealand. However this patient-perceived improvement
potential did not entirely reflect the overall strength of the primary
care structure, notably in Switzerland and Luxembourg where the latter
is rather weak. Other than that, QUALICOPC findings largely confirm the
hypothesis that a stronger primary care structure is associated with
more person-focused care.
The core objective of QUALICOPC was to evaluate primary care in
Europe against criteria of quality, equity and costs. To this end, the
project has spent four years gathering information on different settings
and national strategies for primary care related to generic health care
system goals, quality of services provided and quality of primary care
as perceived by patients.