Dataset Information

Association of practice size and pay-for-performance incentives with the quality of diabetes management in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Not enough is known about the association between practice size and clinical outcomes in primary care. We examined this association between 1997 and 2005, in addition to the impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, a pay-for-performance incentive scheme introduced in the United Kingdom in 2004, on diabetes management.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective open-cohort study using data from the General Practice Research Database. We enrolled 422 general practices providing care for 154,945 patients with diabetes. Our primary outcome measures were the achievement of national treatment targets for blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels and total cholesterol.

Results

We saw improvements in the recording of process of care measures, prescribing and achieving intermediate outcomes in all practice sizes during the study period. We saw improvement in reaching national targets after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. These improvements significantly exceeded the underlying trends in all practice sizes for achieving targets for cholesterol level and blood pressure, but not for HbA(1c) level. In 1997 and 2005, there were no significant differences between the smallest and largest practices in achieving targets for blood pressure (1997 odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.16; 2005 OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06 in 2005), cholesterol level (1997 OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16; 2005 OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.40) and glycated hemoglobin level (1997 OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.14; 2005 OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19).

Interpretation

We found no evidence that size of practice is associated with the quality of diabetes management in primary care. Pay-for-performance programs appear to benefit both large and small practices to a similar extent.

SUBMITTER: Vamos EP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3168664 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of practice size and pay-for-performance incentives with the quality of diabetes management in primary care.

Vamos Eszter P EP Pape Utz J UJ Bottle Alex A Hamilton Fiona Louise FL Curcin Vasa V Ng Anthea A Molokhia Mariam M Car Josip J Majeed Azeem A Millett Christopher C

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20110802 12

<h4>Background</h4>Not enough is known about the association between practice size and clinical outcomes in primary care. We examined this association between 1997 and 2005, in addition to the impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, a pay-for-performance incentive scheme introduced in the United Kingdom in 2004, on diabetes management.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospective open-cohort study using data from the General Practice Research Database. We enrolled 422 general practices prov ...[more]

PMID: 21810950

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a central strategy for improving quality in US healthcare, questions persist about the effectiveness of these programs. A key question is whether quality improvement that occurs as a result of P4P programs is sustainable, particularly if incentives are removed.ObjectiveTo investigate sustainability of performance levels following removal of performance-based incentives.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cohort study that capitalized on a P4P program within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that included adoption and subsequent removal of performance-based incentives for selected inpatient quality measures. The study sample comprised 128 acute care VA hospitals where performance was assessed between 2004 and 2010.InterventionVA system managers set annual performance goals in consultation with clinical leaders, and report performance scores to medical centers on a quarterly basis. These scores inform performance-based incentives for facilities and their managers. Bonuses are distributed based on the attainment of these performance goals.MeasurementsSeven quality of care measures for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and pneumonia linked to performance-based incentives.ResultsSignificant improvements in performance were observed for six of seven quality of care measures following adoption of performance-based incentives and were maintained up to the removal of the incentive; subsequently, the observed performance levels were sustained.LimitationsThis is a quasi-experimental study without a comparison group; causal conclusions are limited.ConclusionThe maintenance of performance levels after removal of a performance-based incentive has implications for the implementation of Medicare's value-based purchasing initiative and other P4P programs. Additional research is needed to better understand human and system-level factors that mediate sustainability of performance-based incentives.

Project description:Most evaluations of pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives have focused on large-group practices. Thus, the effect of P4P in small practices, where many US residents receive care, is largely unknown. Furthermore, whether electronic health records (EHRs) with chronic disease management capabilities support small-practice response to P4P has not been studied.To assess the effect of P4P incentives on quality in EHR-enabled small practices in the context of an established quality improvement initiative.A cluster-randomized trial of small (<10 clinicians) primary care clinics in New York City from April 2009 through March 2010. A city program provided all participating clinics with the same EHR software with decision support and patient registry functionalities and quality improvement specialists offering technical assistance.Incentivized clinics were paid for each patient whose care met the performance criteria, but they received higher payments for patients with comorbidities, who had Medicaid insurance, or who were uninsured (maximum payments: $200/patient; $100,000/clinic). Quality reports were given quarterly to both the intervention and control groups.Comparison of differences in performance improvement, from the beginning to the end of the study, between control and intervention clinics for aspirin or antithrombotic prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol control, and smoking cessation interventions. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to account for clustering of patients within clinics, with a treatment by time interaction term assessing the statistical significance of the effect of the intervention.Participating clinics (n?=?42 for each group) had similar baseline characteristics, with a mean of 4592 (median, 2500) patients at the intervention group clinics and 3042 (median, 2000) at the control group clinics. Intervention clinics had greater adjusted absolute improvement in rates of appropriate antithrombotic prescription (12.0% vs 6.1%, difference: 6.0% [95% CI, 2.2% to 9.7%], P?=?.001 for interaction term), blood pressure control (no comorbidities: 9.7% vs 4.3%, difference: 5.5% [95% CI, 1.6% to 9.3%], P?=?.01 for interaction term; with diabetes mellitus: 9.0% vs 1.2%, difference: 7.8% [95% CI, 3.2% to 12.4%], P?=?.007 for interaction term; with diabetes mellitus or ischemic vascular disease: 9.5% vs 1.7%, difference: 7.8% [95% CI, 3.0% to 12.6%], P?=?.01 for interaction term), and in smoking cessation interventions (12.4% vs 7.7%, difference: 4.7% [95% CI, -0.3% to 9.6%], P?=?.02 for interaction term). Intervention clinics performed better on all measures for Medicaid and uninsured patients except cholesterol control, but no differences were statistically significant.Among small EHR-enabled clinics, a P4P incentive program compared with usual care resulted in modest improvements in cardiovascular care processes and outcomes. Because most proposed P4P programs are intended to remain in place more than a year, further research is needed to determine whether this effect increases or decreases over time.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00884013.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence-based guidelines, high-quality diabetes care is not always achieved. Identifying factors associated with the quality of management in primary care may inform service improvements, facilitating the tailoring of quality improvement interventions to practice needs and resources.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science from January 1990 to March 2019. Eligible studies were cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and randomised controlled trials (baseline data) conducted among adults with diabetes, which examined the relationship between any physician and/or practice factors and any objective measure(s) of quality. Studies which examined patient factors only were ineligible. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsIn total, 82 studies were included. The range of individual quality measures and the construction of composite measures varied considerably. Female physicians compared with males ((odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10), 8 studies), physicians with higher diabetes volume compared with lower volume (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05-1.47, 4 studies) and practices with Electronic Health Records (EHR) versus practices without (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.84, 4 studies) were associated with a higher quality of care. There was no association between physician experience, practice location and type of practice and quality. Based on the narrative synthesis, increasing physician age and higher practice socio-economic deprivation may be associated with lower quality of care.DiscussionIdentification of physician- and practice-level factors associated with the quality of care (female gender, younger age, physician-level diabetes volume, practice deprivation and EHR use) may explain differences across practices and physicians, provide potential targets for quality improvement interventions and indicate which practices need specific supports to deliver improvements in diabetes care.

Project description:BackgroundQuality measurements in primary healthcare (PHC) have become an essential component for improving diabetes outcomes in many high-income countries. However, little is known about their implementation within the Chinese health-system context and how they are perceived by patients, physicians, and policy-makers. We examined stakeholders' perceptions of quality and performance measurements for primary diabetes care in Shanghai, China, and analyzed facilitators and barriers to implementation.MethodsIn-depth interviews with 26 key stakeholders were conducted from 2018 to 2019. Participants were sampled from two hospitals, four community healthcare centers (CHCs), and four institutes involved in regulating CHCs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data analysis.ResultsExisting quality measurements were uniformly implemented via a top-down process, with daily monitoring of family doctors' work and pay-for-performance incentives. Barriers included excluding frontline clinicians from indicator planning, a lack of transparent reporting, and a rigid organizational culture with limited bottom-up feedback. Findings under the CFIR construct "organizational incentives" suggested that current pay-for-performance incentives function as a "double-edged sword," increasing family doctors' motivation to excel while creating pressures to "game the system" among some physicians. When considering the CFIR construct "reflecting and evaluating," policy-makers perceived the online evaluation application - which provides daily reports on family doctors' work - to be an essential tool for improving quality; however, this information was not visible to patients. Findings included under the "network and communication" construct showed that specialists support the work of family doctors by providing training and patient consultations in CHCs.ConclusionThe quality of healthcare could be considerably enhanced by involving patients and physicians in decisions on quality measurement. Strengthening hospital-community partnerships can improve the quality of primary care in hospital-centric systems. The case of Shanghai provides compelling policy lessons for other health systems faced with the challenge of improving PHC.

Dataset Information

Association of practice size and pay-for-performance incentives with the quality of diabetes management in primary care.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Association of practice size and pay-for-performance incentives with the quality of diabetes management in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets