Clinical effects of accreditation in general practice: a pragmatic randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND

Accreditation has been implemented in general practice in many countries as a tool for quality improvement. Evidence of the effects of accreditation is, however, lacking.

AIM: To investigate the clinical effects of accreditation in general practice.

DESIGN AND

SETTING

A mandatory national accreditation programme in Danish general practice was rolled out from 2016 to 2018. General practices were randomized to year of accreditation at the municipality level.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study with general practices randomized to accreditation in 2016 (intervention group) and 2018 (control group). Data on patients enlisted with these practices were collected at baseline in 2014 (before randomization) and at follow-up in 2017. We use linear and logistic regression models to compare differences in changes in outcomes from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups. The primary outcome was the number of redeemed medications. Secondary outcomes were polypharmacy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) without proton pump inhibitors, sleeping medicine, preventive home visits, annual controls, spirometry tests, and mortality.

RESULTS

We found statistically significant effects of accreditation on the primary outcome, the number of redeemed medications, and the secondary outcome, polypharmacy. No other effects were detected.

CONCLUSION

In this first randomized study exploring the effects of accreditation in a primary care context, accreditation was found to reduce the number of redeemed medications and polypharmacy. We conclude that accreditation can be effective in changing behaviour, but the identified effects are small and limited to certain outcomes. Evaluations on the cost-effectiveness of accreditation are therefore warranted.