Information systems for general practitioners for quality assessment: I. Responses of the doctors.Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985; 291 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.291.6507.1473 (Published 23 November 1985) Cite this as: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;291:1473
- R C Fraser,
- J T Gosling
A questionnaire was sent to all general practitioner principals in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire (n = 669) to determine (a) the extent to which they would participate in quality assessment activities based on objective evidence of performance and (b) the personal and professional characteristics of interested doctors. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 76% (508 replies). The highest response rates were recorded by trainers (100%), principals in training practices (94%), and younger doctors (80-86%), the lowest by overseas graduates (59%) and older doctors (65%). Distinctive patterns of interest and participation in three types of audit activities were clearly evident. Overall, 61% (310) of respondents wished to be provided with profiles of practice activity from their family practitioner committees, 36% (183) volunteered to participate in a prescribing study, and 34% (172) expressed interest in carrying out an audit in depth. Proportionately, the most enthusiastic and active groups were trainers 88%, 70%, 62%), principals in training practices (74%, 49%, 47%), and members or fellows of the Royal College of General Practitioners (71%, 50%, 45%). Also active were younger doctors, vocationally trained doctors, and principals in large group practices. These figures suggest that roughly 15 000 general practitioners in the United Kingdom would be prepared to participate in performance review activities using information provided by external agencies, 10 000 would if they had to generate some of the information, and 7500 would if they had to produce all the information themselves.