Dataset Information

Withdrawing performance indicators: retrospective analysis of general practice performance under UK Quality and Outcomes Framework.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the effect of withdrawing incentives on recorded quality of care, in the context of the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay for performance scheme.

Design

Retrospective longitudinal study.

Setting

Data for 644 general practices, from 2004/05 to 2011/12, extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Participants

All patients registered with any of the practices over the study period-13,772,992 in total.

Intervention

Removal of financial incentives for aspects of care for patients with asthma, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and psychosis.

Main outcome measures

Performance on eight clinical quality indicators withdrawn from a national incentive scheme: influenza immunisation (asthma) and lithium treatment monitoring (psychosis), removed in April 2006; blood pressure monitoring (coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke), cholesterol concentration monitoring (coronary heart disease, diabetes), and blood glucose monitoring (diabetes), removed in April 2011. Multilevel mixed effects multiple linear regression models were used to quantify the effect of incentive withdrawal.

Results

Mean levels of performance were generally stable after the removal of the incentives, in both the short and long term. For the two indicators removed in April 2006, levels in 2011/12 were very close to 2005/06 levels, although a small but statistically significant drop was estimated for influenza immunisation. For five of the six indicators withdrawn from April 2011, no significant effect on performance was seen following removal and differences between predicted and observed scores were small. Performance on related outcome indicators retained in the scheme (such as blood pressure control) was generally unaffected.

Conclusions

Following the removal of incentives, levels of performance across a range of clinical activities generally remained stable. This indicates that health benefits from incentive schemes can potentially be increased by periodically replacing existing indicators with new indicators relating to alternative aspects of care. However, all aspects of care investigated remained indirectly or partly incentivised in other indicators, and further work is needed to assess the generalisability of the findings when incentives are fully withdrawn.

SUBMITTER: Kontopantelis E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3903315 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStroke is a leading cause of death and disability; worldwide it is estimated that 16.9 million people have a first stroke each year. Lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, and antihypertensive drugs can prevent strokes, but may be underused.Methods and findingsWe analysed anonymised electronic primary care records from a United Kingdom (UK) primary care database that covers approximately 6% of the UK population. Patients with first-ever stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), ?18 y, with diagnosis between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013, were included. Drugs were considered under-prescribed when lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, or antihypertensive drugs were clinically indicated but were not prescribed prior to the time of stroke or TIA. The proportions of strokes or TIAs with prevention drugs under-prescribed, when clinically indicated, were calculated. In all, 29,043 stroke/TIA patients met the inclusion criteria; 17,680 had ?1 prevention drug clinically indicated: 16,028 had lipid-lowering drugs indicated, 3,194 anticoagulant drugs, and 7,008 antihypertensive drugs. At least one prevention drug was not prescribed when clinically indicated in 54% (9,579/17,680) of stroke/TIA patients: 49% (7,836/16,028) were not prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, 52% (1,647/3,194) were not prescribed anticoagulant drugs, and 25% (1,740/7,008) were not prescribed antihypertensive drugs. The limitations of our study are that our definition of under-prescribing of drugs for stroke/TIA prevention did not address patients' adherence to medication or medication targets, such as blood pressure levels.ConclusionsIn our study, over half of people eligible for lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, or antihypertensive drugs were not prescribed them prior to first stroke/TIA. We estimate that approximately 12,000 first strokes could potentially be prevented annually in the UK through optimal prescribing of these drugs. Improving prescription of lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, and antihypertensive drugs is important to reduce the incidence and burden of stroke and TIA.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate a county-wide deincentivisation of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) payment scheme for UK General Practice (GP). SETTING:In 2014, National Health Service England signalled a move towards devolution of QOF to Clinical Commissioning Groups. Fifty-five GPs in Somerset established the Somerset Practice Quality Scheme (SPQS)-a deincentivisation of QOF-with the goal of redirecting resources towards Person Centred Coordinated Care (P3C), especially for those with long-term conditions (LTCs). We evaluated the impact on processes and outcomes of care from April 2016 to March 2017. PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN:The evaluation used data from 55 SPQS practices and 17 regional control practices for three survey instruments. We collected patient experiences ('P3C-EQ'; 2363 returns from patients with 1+LTC; 36% response rate), staff experiences ('P3C-practitioner'; 127 professionals) and organisational data ('P3C-OCT'; 36 of 55 practices at two time points, 65% response rate; 17 control practices). Hospital Episode Statistics emergency admission data were analysed for 2014-2017 for ambulatory-sensitive conditions across Somerset using interrupted time series. RESULTS:Patient and practitioner experiences were similar in SPQS versus control practices. However, discretion from QOF incentives resulted in time savings in the majority of practices, and SPQS practice data showed a significant increase in P3C oriented organisational processes, with a moderate effect size (Wilcoxon signed rank test; p=0.01; r=0.42). Analysis of transformation plans and organisational data suggested stronger federation-level agreements and informal networks, increased multidisciplinary working, reallocation of resources for other healthcare professionals and changes to the structure and timings of GP appointments. No disbenefits were detected in admission data. CONCLUSION:The SPQS scheme leveraged time savings and reduced administrative burden via discretionary removal of QOF incentives, enabling practices to engage actively in a number of schemes aimed at improving care for people with LTCs. We found no differences in the experiences of patients or healthcare professionals between SPQS and control practices.

Project description:There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK).Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice.Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models.Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine to what extent underlying data published as part of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) can be used to estimate smoking prevalence within practice populations and local areas and to explore the usefulness of these estimates.DesignCross-sectional, observational study of QOF smoking data. Smoking prevalence in general practice populations and among patients with chronic conditions was estimated by simple manipulation of QOF indicator data. Agreement between estimates from the integrated household survey (IHS) and aggregated QOF-based estimates was calculated. The impact of including smoking estimates in negative binomial regression models of counts of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths was assessed.SettingPrimary care in the East Midlands.ParticipantsAll general practices in the area of study were eligible for inclusion (230). 14 practices were excluded due to incomplete QOF data for the period of study (2006/2007-2012/2013). One practice was excluded as it served a restricted practice list.MeasurementsEstimates of smoking prevalence in general practice populations and among patients with chronic conditions.ResultsMedian smoking prevalence in the practice populations for 2012/2013 was 19.2% (range 5.8-43.0%). There was good agreement (mean difference: 0.39%; 95% limits of agreement (-3.77, 4.55)) between IHS estimates for local authority districts and aggregated QOF register estimates. Smoking prevalence estimates in those with chronic conditions were lower than for the general population (mean difference -3.05%), but strongly correlated (Rp=0.74, p<0.0001). An important positive association between premature CHD mortality and smoking prevalence was shown when smoking prevalence was added to other population and service characteristics.ConclusionsPublished QOF data allow useful estimation of smoking prevalence within practice populations and in those with chronic conditions; the latter estimates may sometimes be useful in place of the former. It may also provide useful estimates of smoking prevalence in local areas by aggregating practice based data.