Dataset Information

Investigating the relationship between quality of primary care and premature mortality in England: a spatial whole-population study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To quantify the relationship between a national primary care pay-for-performance programme, the UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and all-cause and cause-specific premature mortality linked closely with conditions included in the framework.

Design

Longitudinal spatial study, at the level of the "lower layer super output area" (LSOA).

Setting

32482 LSOAs (neighbourhoods of 1500 people on average), covering the whole population of England (approximately 53.5 million), from 2007 to 2012.

Participants

8647 English general practices participating in the QOF for at least one year of the study period, including over 99% of patients registered with primary care.

Intervention

National pay-for-performance programme incentivising performance on over 100 quality-of-care indicators.

Main outcome measures

All-cause and cause-specific mortality rates for six chronic conditions: diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. We used multiple linear regressions to investigate the relationship between spatially estimated recorded quality of care and mortality.

Results

All-cause and cause-specific mortality rates declined over the study period. Higher mortality was associated with greater area deprivation, urban location, and higher proportion of a non-white population. In general, there was no significant relationship between practice performance on quality indicators included in the QOF and all-cause or cause-specific mortality rates in the practice locality.

Conclusions

Higher reported achievement of activities incentivised under a major, nationwide pay-for-performance programme did not seem to result in reduced incidence of premature death in the population.

SUBMITTER: Kontopantelis E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4353289 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To identify features of primary care quality improvement associated with improved health outcomes using premature coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality as an example, and to determine impacts of different modelling approaches.Cross-sectional study of mortality rates in 229 general practices.General practices from three East Midlands primary care trusts.Patients registered to the practices above between April 2006 and March 2009.Numbers of CHD deaths in those aged under 75 (premature mortality) and at all ages in each practice.Population characteristics and markers of quality of primary care were associated with variations in premature CHD mortality. Increasing levels of deprivation, percentages of practice populations on practice diabetes registers, white, over 65 and male were all associated with increasing levels of premature CHD mortality. Control of serum cholesterol levels in those with CHD and the percentage of patients recalling access to their preferred general practitioner were both associated with decreased levels of premature CHD mortality. Similar results were found for all-age mortality. A combined measure of quality of primary care for CHD comprising 12 quality outcomes framework indicators was associated with decreases in both all-age and premature CHD mortality. The selected models suggest that practices in less deprived areas may have up to 20% lower premature CHD mortality than those with median deprivation and that improvement in the CHD care quality from 83% (lower quartile) to 86% (median) could reduce premature CHD mortality by 3.6%. Different modelling approaches yielded qualitatively similar results.High-quality primary care, including aspects of access to and continuity of care, detection and management, appears to be associated with reducing CHD mortality. The impact on premature CHD mortality is greater than on all-age CHD mortality. Determining the most useful measures of quality of primary care needs further consideration.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The persistent development and spread of resistance to antibiotics remain an important public health concern in the UK and globally. About 74% of antibiotics prescribed in England in 2016 was in primary care. The Quality Premium (QP) initiative that rewards Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) financially based on the quality of specific health services commissioned is one of the National Health Service (NHS) England interventions to reduce antimicrobial resistance through reduced prescribing. Emerging evidence suggests a reduction in antibiotic prescribing in primary care practices in the UK following QP initiative. This study aims to investigate the mechanism of impact of this high-cost health-system level intervention on antibiotic prescribing in primary care practices in England. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study will constitute secondary analyses of antibiotic prescribing data for almost all primary care practices in England from the NHS England Antibiotic Quality Premium Monitoring Dashboard and OpenPrescribing covering the period 2013 to 2018. The primary outcome is the number of antibiotic items per Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex Related Prescribing Unit (STAR-PU) prescribed monthly in each practice or CCG. We will first conduct an interrupted time series using ordinary least square regression method to examine whether antibiotic prescribing rate in England has changed over time, and how such changes, if any, are associated with QP implementation. Single and sequential multiple-mediator models using a unified approach for the natural direct and indirect effects will be conducted to investigate the relationship between QP initiative, the potential mediators and antibiotic prescribing rate with adjustment for practice and CCG characteristics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study will use secondary data that are anonymised and obtained from studies that have either undergone ethical review or generated data from routine collection systems. Multiple channels will be used in disseminating the findings from this study to academic and non-academic audiences.

Project description:ObjectivesPostoperative mortality is a widely used quality indicator, but it may be unreliable when procedure numbers and/or mortality rates are low, due to insufficient statistical power. The objective was to investigate the statistical validity of postoperative 30-day mortality as a quality metric for neurosurgical practice across healthcare providers.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingHospital Episode Statistics data from all neurosurgical units in England.ParticipantsPatients who underwent neurosurgical procedures between April 2013 and March 2018. Procedures were grouped using the National Neurosurgical Audit Programme classification.Outcomes measuredNational 30-day postoperative mortality rates were calculated for elective and non-elective neurosurgical procedural groups. The study estimated the proportion of neurosurgeons and NHS trusts in England that performed sufficient procedures in 3-year and 5-year periods to detect unusual performance (defined as double the national rate of mortality). The actual difference in mortality rates that could be reliably detected based on procedure volumes of neurosurgeons and units over a 5-year period was modelled.ResultsThe 30-day mortality rates for all elective and non-elective procedures were 0.4% and 6.1%, respectively. Only one neurosurgeon in England achieved the minimum sample size (n=2402) of elective cases in 5 years needed to detect if their mortality rate was double the national average. All neurosurgical units achieved the minimum sample sizes for both elective (n=2402) and non-elective (n=149) procedures. In several neurosurgical subspecialties, approximately 80% of units (or more) achieved the minimum sample sizes needed to detect if their mortality rate was double the national rate, including elective neuro-oncology (baseline mortality rate=2.3%), non-elective neuro-oncology (rate=5.7%), neurovascular (rate=6.7%) and trauma (rate=11%).ConclusionPostoperative mortality lacks statistical power as a measure of individual neurosurgeon performance. Neurosurgical units in England performed sufficient procedure numbers overall and in several subspecialty areas to support the use of mortality as a quality indicator.