You are viewing an older, archived article. There may be more up to date articles on this subject, try a new search

Best Practice Survey Results

PDF of entire document

3. bpacnz publications are considered very useful

Q3. Please rate how useful you find the following bpac publications
    Not at all useful       Very useful
  Best Practice Journal
  Best Tests (GPs)
  Personalised Reports (GPs)
  Clinical Audits (GPs)
  CME Quizzes
  Patient Information

Figure 6: Average rating by publication type.

Best Practice Journal  
  1 2 3 4 5
Best Tests  
  1 2 3 4 5
Personalised Reports  
  1 2 3 4 5
Clinical Audits  
  1 2 3 4 5
CME Quizzes  
  1 2 3 4 5
Patient Information  
  1 2 3 4 5

All the bpacnz resources rated highly for usefulness, particularly the patient information, Best Tests and the Best Practice Journal.

“It’s my bible.”– Hastings

“Extremely useful, concise, accurate and topical.”– Blenheim

“BPAC info is the most useful in day to day real GP work thanks. – Levin

“For me personally, bpac presents the most clearly presented and easily absorbed material from a care/best practice perspective.” – Auckland

“Out of all the magazines and publications I receive the Best Practice Journal is the one I would rate the best. I also find your patient information brochures very good and easy to understand and I use them frequently.”– Timaru

“When I worked in the UK my colleagues were stunned at the quality of information provided by bpac, included registrar teacher + local coordinator of registrar teaching.”– Katikati

“I think bpac is an excellent resource. I always look forward to receiving the journal and find it relevant to my day to day practice.”– Manukau

“bpac has shaped my daily practice. They provide me with the incentives to make adjustments to meet best practice standards “. - Glendowie

“While not a GP I do hear very positive reports from our GPs on the personalised reports. I also want to acknowledge the value of the PHO level reports. Very useful.”– Whangarei

While still being rated as “more than useful” bpacnz personalised prescribing reports received the lowest overall rating and the largest number of suggestions for improvement. The majority of these suggestions focused on perceived issues with the accuracy of the data reported and the need to include better denominators on reports, particularly related to patient demographics and workload.

“Personalised reports don’t take into account consultation rates or practice variants”.

“The size of a practice and the consultation numbers need to be considered in personalised reports”.

“Personalised reports limited by unequal volume of patients seen and by particular types of patients predominately seen”.

In general locum general practitioners and those working part time or in a number of different practices tended to rate the personalised reports lower. Their comments indicate that they consider the reports to be a reflection of the prescribing patterns of those they work for rather than their own preferences.

“I find all your publications excellent but the value of the personalised reports and patient information is slightly compromised for me as I work as a locum”.

Page  Intro | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 Page 3