Introduction There is a broad call for change in existing quality systems within health care. One of the anticipated reforms, is transferring ownership back to care deliverers. A promising way to establish this in general practice care, is to combine audit and feedback with peer group discussion. However, it is unknown what different stakeholder groups think of giving prominence to this type of quality improvement. In this study we explore ideas and opinions of different stakeholder groups in general practice on the opportunities and risks that could arise. Methods We conducted an exploratory qualitative study, combining interviews with focus discussion groups. Included stakeholder groups were general practitioners, patients, professional organizations and insurance companies. Within a constructivist paradigm, two researchers coded the data in three rounds, using thematic analysis. After continuously comparing and discussing codes with a third researcher, a final code tree emerged, presenting us with the main themes. Results In eight interviews and two focus discussion groups, 22 participants reflected upon opportunities and risks. We identified three main opportunities: deeper levels of reflection upon data, adding context to numbers and more ownership, and three main risks: handling of unwilling colleagues, lacking a safe group and the necessity of patient involvement. An additional theme concerned disagreement on the amount of transparency that should be offered: insurance companies and patients advocated for complete transparency on data and improvement of outcomes, while GPs and professional organizations urged to restrict transparency to giving insight into the process. Conclusion Peer discussion of audit and feedback could be part of a change movement, towards a quality system based on learning and trust, that is powered from within the profession. Creating a safe learning environment is key herein. Caution is needed when complete transparency is asked, since it can jeopardize practitioners' reflection and learning in safety.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Amsterdam UMC waived ethical approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.