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:BACKGROUND:Primary care provides the foundation for most modern health-care systems, and in the interests of equity, it should be resourced according to local need. We aimed to describe spatially the burden of chronic conditions and primary medical care funding in England at a low geographical level, and to measure how much variation in funding is explained by chronic condition prevalence and other patient and regional factors. METHODS:We used multiple administrative data sets including chronic condition prevalence and management data (2014/15), funding for primary-care practices (2015-16), and geographical and area deprivation data (2015). Data were assigned to a low geographical level (average 1500 residents). We investigated the overall morbidity burden across 19 chronic conditions and its regional variation, spatial clustering and association with funding and area deprivation. A linear regression model was used to explain local variation in spending using patient demographics, morbidity, deprivation and regional characteristics. RESULTS:Levels of morbidity varied within and between regions, with several clusters of very high morbidity identified. At the regional level, morbidity was modestly associated with practice funding, with the North East and North West appearing underfunded. The regression model explained 39% of the variability in practice funding, but even after adjusting for covariates, a large amount of variability in funding existed across regions. High morbidity and, especially, rural location were very strongly associated with higher practice funding, while associations were more modest for high deprivation and older age. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care funding in England does not adequately reflect the contemporary morbidity burden. More equitable resource allocation could be achieved by making better use of routinely available information and big data resources. Similar methods could be deployed in other countries where comparable data are collected, to identify morbidity clusters and to target funding to areas of greater need.