Dataset Information

Approaches to Measure Efficiency in Primary Care: A Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary care in England is facing increasing pressure due to the increasing number and complexity of consultations and the declining number of doctors per head of population. The improvement of primary care efficiency and productivity should be a priority, to ensure that future investments in the medical workforce can cope with the increasingly large and complex demand for care.

Objectives

This paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that define or measure efficiency in primary care in high-income settings. The review of the existing definitions of primary care efficiency and their limitations will inform future research on the measurement of efficiency in primary care in England and its determinants.

Methods

Literature searches were performed on Embase, Medline, and EconLit in January 2020. The records that passed the screening were reviewed in full text, and data on the study settings, the efficiency definition, and the efficiency analysis were extracted.

Results

Of the 2590 non-duplicate records retrieved from the searches, 38 papers were included in the analysis. The volume of the literature on primary care efficiency has evolved significantly from the 1980s, with the majority of the published studies focussing on European health systems. The setting most often analysed was primary care centres. Output was usually expressed using measures of primary care utilisation, with or without quality adjustments. Reference to the health outcomes achieved was, however, limited. Inputs were more commonly expressed in labour terms, while the exogenous variables related either to the characteristics of the patient population or the organisation of primary care. While all studies included an analysis of technical efficiency, consideration of allocative or cost efficiency or the determinants of productivity (e.g. technological change, skill mix) was rare.

Conclusions

The main limitations that future research on primary care efficiency should address relate to the definition of output. Current approaches to measure the impact on health and the multiple dimensions of output are not sufficient to represent the valued output of primary care. In light of the recent changes in the model of primary care delivery in England, future research should also investigate the impact of technological change on productivity and the scope for substitution across staff roles.

SUBMITTER: Neri M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8337146 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy. METHODS:Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness. RESULTS:We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews. CONCLUSIONS:We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

Project description:Tobacco consumption is a risk factor for chronic diseases and worldwide around six million people die from long-term exposure to first- or second-hand smoke annually. One effective approach to tobacco control is smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians. However, research suggests that smoking cessation counseling is not sufficiently implemented in primary care. In order to understand and address the discrepancy between evidence and practice, an overview of counseling practices is needed. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the frequency of smoking cessation counseling in primary care. Self-reported counseling behavior by physicians is categorized according to the 5A's strategy (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange). An electronic database search was performed in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library and overall, 3491 records were identified. After duplicates were removed, the title and abstracts of 2468 articles were screened for eligibility according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The remaining 97 full-text articles reporting smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians were assessed for eligibility. Eligible studies were those that measured physicians' self-reported smoking cessation counseling activities via questionnaire. Thirty-five articles were included in the final review (1 intervention and 34 cross-sectional studies). On average, behavior corresponding to the 5A's was reported by 65% of physicians for "Ask", 63% for "Advise", 36% for "Assess", 44% for "Assist", and 22% of physicians for "Arrange", although the measurement and reporting of each of these counseling practices varied across studies. Overall, the results indicate that the first strategies (ask, advise) were more frequently reported than the subsequent strategies (assess, assist, arrange). Moreover, there was considerable variation in the items used to assess counseling behaviour and developing a standardized instrument to assess the counseling strategies implemented in primary care would help to identify and address current gaps in practice.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is a key element of health care systems and addresses the main health problems of the population. Due to the demographic change, primary care even gains in importance. The knowledge of the patients' preferences can help policy makers as well as physicians to set priorities in their effort to make health care delivery more responsive to patients' needs. Our objective was to describe which aspects of primary care were included in preference studies and which of them were the most preferred aspects.MethodsIn order to elicit the preferences for primary care, a systematic literature search was conducted. Two researchers searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were: focus on primary health care delivery, discrete choice experiment as elicitation method, and studies published between 2006 and 2015 in English language.ResultsWe identified 18 studies that elicited either the patients' or the population's preferences for primary care based on a discrete choice experiment. Altogether the studies used 16 structure attributes, ten process attributes and four outcome attributes. The most commonly applied structure attribute was "Waiting time till appointment", the most frequently used process attribute was "Shared decision making / professional's attention paid to your views". "Receiving the 'best' treatment" was the most commonly applied outcome attribute. Process attributes were most often the ones of highest importance for patients or the population. The attributes and attribute levels used in the discrete choice experiments were identified by literature research, qualitative research, expert interviews, or the analysis of policy documents.ConclusionsThe results of the DCE studies show different preferences for primary health care. The diversity of the results may have several reasons, such as the method of analysis, the selection procedure of the attributes and their levels or the specific research question of the study. As the results of discrete choice experiments depend on many different factors, it is important for a better comprehensibility of the studies to transparently report the steps undertaken in a study as well as the interim results regarding the identification of attributes and levels.