Table 2 Results of the weighing of the importance of sub-domains within domains by two expert panels
(Sub) Domains | Care groups (DCGs) | Outpatient clinics (DOCs) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Number of questions per sub-domain | Mean (%) | Median (min,max) (%) | p-value* | Number of questions per sub-domain | Mean (%) | Median (min,max) (%) | p-value* |
Organisation of care | 13: | 100.0 | Â | Â | 9: | 100.0 | Â | Â |
Care program | 4 | 34.6 | 33.3(25–50) | ns | 4 | 32.0 | 33.3(20–50) | ns |
Continuity and Coordination | 6 | 31.5 | 30(25–50) | ns | 2 | 31.5 | 33.3(20–40) | ns |
Communication and Information | 3 | 34.0 | 33.2(20–50) | ns | 3 | 36.5 | 33.3(25–60) | ns |
Multidisciplinary teamwork: | 15: | 100.0 | Â | Â | 16: | 100.0 | Â | Â |
Work agreement | 4 | 24.0 | 25(11–33) | ns | 3 | 23.0 | 20(10–50) | ns |
Tasks and responsibilities | 3 | 25.4 | 25(17–35) | ns | 3 | 23.5 | 20(10–50) | ns |
Teamwork/ consultation/ shared education/ guidelines | 5 | 26.0 | 25(16–34) | ns | 6 | 16.3 | 16.7(10–25) | ns |
Transfer and referral | 3 | 24.6 | 25(13–42) | ns | 3 | 17.8 | 20(10–25) | ns |
Diabetic foot team | - | - | - | - | 1 | 19.4 | 20(5–30) | ns |
Patient centeredness: | 7: | 100.0 | Â | Â | 7: | 100.0 | Â | Â |
Self-management | 1 | 20.2 | 20(5–35) | ns | 1 | 31.1 | 30(5–60) | 0.04 |
Individual care plan | 1 | 18.7 | 18.3(10–30) | ns | 1 | 12.3 | 15(5–20) | 0.03 |
Policy on patient education | 1 | 12.2 | 12.5(5–20) | 0.02 | 1 | 17.3 | 16(5–30) | ns |
Inspection of medical file | 2 | 13.7 | 15(5–20) | ns | 2 | 11.8 | 10(5–16) | 0.00 |
Patient interests | 1 | 16.2 | 15(10–25) | ns | 1 | 12.9 | 10(5–20) | ns |
Patient involvement | 1 | 19.2 | 15.8(10–40) | ns | 1 | 14.6 | 10(10–40) | ns |
Performance management: | 8: | 100.0 | Â | Â | 8: | 100.0 | Â | Â |
Registering results | 1 | 28.0 | 25(10–40) | ns | 1 | 30.6 | 30(10–55) | 0.04 |
Control of results | 1 | 18.5 | 20(5–30) | ns | 1 | 20.6 | 20(10–40) | ns |
Processing of results | 2 | 16.5 | 17.5(5–40) | ns | 2 | 10.6 | 10(5–20) | 0.00 |
Analysing results | 2 | 16.0 | 17.5(5–30) | ns | 2 | 17.8 | 15(10–50) | ns |
Performance indicators | 2 | 21.0 | 20(10–40) | ns | 2 | 20.6 | 20(10–30) | ns |
Quality improvement: | 11: | 100.0 | Â | Â | 11: | 100.0 | Â | Â |
Elements of QI | 1 | 12.5 | 10(0–30) | ns | 1 | 12.8 | 15(0–20) | ns |
Feedback/ benchmark | 2 | 25.5 | 27.5(15–30) | 0.00 | 2 | 17.2 | 20(0–30) | ns |
Visitation | 2 | 19.5 | 20(0–40) | ns | 1 | 21.1 | 20(10–35) | ns |
Education | 2 | 21.0 | 20(10–35) | ns | 2 | 15.0 | 20(0–20) | ns |
Patient safety | 2 | 9.5 | 10(0–20) | 0.01 | 3 | 18.3 | 15(10–35) | ns |
Defining sub-groups | 2 | 12.0 | 12.5(0–25) | ns | 2 | 15.6 | 15(0–30) | ns |
Management strategies: | 5: | 100.0 | Â | Â | 6: | 100.0 | Â | Â |
Structural policy | 3 | 54.7 | 50(33–100) | 0.02 | 3 | 47.9 | 40(33–100) | ns |
Quality system | 1 | 16.3 | 20(0–33) | 0.01 | 1 | 22.3 | 27.5(0–40) | 0.03 |
Quality documents | 1 | 29.0 | 33(0–40) | ns | 2 | 29.8 | 31.7(0–50) | ns |