Practice organisational characteristics can impact on compliance with the BTS/SIGN asthma guideline: Qualitative comparative case study in primary care
Open accessAbstract
Background: Although the BTS-SIGN asthma guideline is one of the most well known and widely respected guidelines in the world, implementation in UK primary care remains patchy. Building on extensive earlier descriptive work, we sought to explore the way teamwork and inter-professional relationships impact on the implementation of the BTS-SIGN guideline on asthma in general practice. Methods: Qualitative comparative case study using nine in-depth interviews and 2 focus groups with general practitioners and practice nurses, involved in delivering asthma care. Participants were purposively recruited from practices in a Scottish health board with high and low compliance with the BTS-SIGN asthma guideline. Results: There was a marked difference in the way respondents from practices with high compliance and respondents from practices with low compliance spoke about the value of guidelines and the challenges of implementing them. On both accounts, the former were more positive than the latter and were able to be more specific about the strategies they used to overcome barriers to implementation. We explored the reason for this difference in response and identified practice organisation, centring on delegation of work to nurses, as a factor mediating the practice's level of compliance. Effective delegation was underpinned by organisation of asthma work among practice members who have the appropriate level of skills and knowledge, know and understand each others' work and responsibilities, communicate well among themselves and trust each others' skills. It was the combination of these factors which made for successful delegation and guideline implementation, not any one factor in isolation. Conclusion: In our sample of practices, teamwork and organisation of care within practices appeared to impact on guideline implementation and further larger studies are needed to explore this issue further. Isolated interventions such as measures to improve staff's knowledge or increased clinical resource and time, which are currently being considered, are unlikely to be effective unless practices are supported in developing their teams in a way which supports the deployment of these resources.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Flatter hierarchies supported guideline implementation in pediatric primary care; practices with low compliance to guidelines had more hierarchical relationships while practices with high compliance had more shared decision-making.
“Flatter hierarchies (i.e., more equal distribution of power and authority) supported guideline implementation in pediatric primary care; practices with low compliance to guidelines had more hierarchical relationships while practices with high compliance had more shared decision-making [97].”
From Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [97]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 48
- Authors
- Wiener-Ogilvie, S., Huby, G., Pinnock, H., Gillies, J., & Sheikh, A.
- Affiliations
- NHS Education for Scotland (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Pinnock, Hilary
- Venue
- BMC Family Practice
- Published
- 2008-06-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-32
- ISSN
- 1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2427031
- OpenAlex
- W2128058421
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- asthma care, guideline implementation, primary care, practice organization, general practitioners, practice nurses, organizational characteristics, implementation barriers
- MeSH terms
- Asthma, Attitude of Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Nurses, Organizational Innovation, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Professional-Patient Relations, Scotland, Workload, Focus Groups, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Time Management, Organizational Case Studies, Guideline Adherence, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review