Qualitative study reveals primary care leaders’ desire for improved data use and quality improvement, highlighting barriers to capacity building.
Objective This study aimed to understand data-use aspirations of primary care leaders in Australia for driving health system improvement and the barriers to achieving this. Methods A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 15 Australian primary care leaders across 6 states and territories was undertaken. Participants were responsible for management or leadership functions within their primary care health service or organisation. Results Participants expressed aspirations for a more comprehensive, integrated, and connected approach to primary care data use: a ‘whole system view’ with which to understand the impacts of primary care on the broader health system. Participants identified a misalignment between the primary purpose for which the data is initially generated (to support direct patient care and practice administration) and its secondary quality improvement use. Although participants recognise that significant progress has been made in connecting and harmonising healthcare data, limitations in time and technical capabilities among frontline practitioners continue to impede the development and completion of bottom-up data-driven quality improvement activities. Conclusions This study demonstrates that although primary care leaders aspire to a whole-system approach to data use, significant barriers remain. A key misalignment persists between the primary function of data collection for clinical and administrative purposes and its secondary application for quality improvement. Despite progress in national data linkage and harmonisation initiatives, the limited time and technical knowledge available to frontline practitioners continue to constrain practice-level engagement in data-driven improvement. Opportunities exist to strengthen the links between practices and their local Primary Health Networks and Practice Based Research Networks to facilitate capacity building in this area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Webster et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: