How could the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) do more to tackle health inequalities?

Opting out of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and impact on practices' performance

Background

Financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care within general practice. However their effects on care quality are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of practices opting out of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a financial incentive scheme in UK general practice.

Study design

A retrospective before and after study of all practices in Tower Hamlets, east London.

Methods

Practices were given an option by local commissioners of opting out of QOF without a financial penalty and instead opting for a locally designed financial incentive scheme that promoted more holistic care. We compared those practices which opted out of QOF to those which continued. We used national, publicly available QOF achievement data from 2016/17 and 2017/18. We undertook a sub-analysis of 16 QOF indicators to better understand the impact of the intervention.

Results

Of the 36 practices in Tower Hamlets, 7 decided to continue with QOF and 29 opted out. The intervention resulted in a small but statistically significant reduction in the total QOF achievement scores of practices which opted out of QOF. The sub-analysis of 16 QOF indicators showed statistically significant reductions in most of achievement scores net of exceptions for the practices that opted out. The differences in performance between the two cohorts of practices became smaller when exceptions were included.

Conclusions

The removal of QOF financial incentives can result in a reduction in achievement of QOF-related indicators but the size of the effect seems to depend on the QOF exception rates. An alternative incentive scheme that promotes a more holistic approach to care seems to be welcomed by general practices.

Cardiovascular-related conditions and risk factors in primary care for deprived communities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in Northern England

OBJECTIVES

The North East of England, ranked as having the highest poverty levels and the lowest health outcomes, has the highest cardiovascular disease (CVD) premature mortality. This study aimed to compare CVD-related conditions and risk factors for deprived practice populations with other general practice (GP) populations in Northern England to England overall, before and during COVID-19 to identify changes in recorded CVD-related risk factors and conditions and evidence-based lipid prescribing behaviour.

DESIGN

A population-based observational study of aggregated practice-level data obtained from publicly accessible data sets.

SETTING

34 practices that fall into the 15% most deprived practice populations in England were identified as the most deprived communities in the North East and North Cumbria (Deep End).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥16 registered with GP and diagnosed with any form of CVD.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

CVD-related conditions and risk factors, statin prescribing.

RESULTS

Deep End (n=263 830) had a smaller, younger and more deprived population with lower levels of employment and full-time education and higher smoking prevalence. They had some higher recorded CVD-related conditions than England but lower than the non-Deep End. Atrial fibrillation (-0.9, -0.5), hypertension (-3.7, -1.3) and stroke and transient ischaemic attack rates (-0.5, -0.1) appeared to be lower in the Deep End than in the non-Deep End but the optimal statin prescribing rate was higher (3.1, 8.2) than in England.

CONCLUSION

Recorded CVD-related risk factors and conditions remained comparable before and during COVID-19. These are higher in the Deep End than in England and similar or lower than the non-Deep End, with a higher optimal statin prescribing rate. However, it was not possible to control for age and sex. More work is needed to estimate the consequences of the pandemic on disadvantaged communities and to compare whether the findings are replicated in other areas of deprivation.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study

National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.

Socio-economic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factor prevalence in people with type 2 diabetes in Scotland: a cross-sectional study

AIM

To describe the association between socio-economic status and prevalence of key cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes in Scotland.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 264 011 people with type 2 diabetes in Scotland in 2016 identified from the population-based diabetes register. Socio-economic status was defined using quintiles of the area-based Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) with quintile (Q)1 and Q5 used to identify the most- and least-deprived fifths of the population, respectively. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, health board, history of cardiovascular disease and duration of diabetes were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for Q1 compared with Q5 for each risk factor.

RESULTS

The mean (sd) age of the study population was 66.7 (12.8) years, 56% were men, 24% were in Q1 and 15% were in Q5. Crude prevalence in Q1/Q5 was 24%/8.8% for smoking, 62%/49% for BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² , 44%/40% for HbA_1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%), 31%/31% for systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 mmHg, and 24%/25% for total cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/l, respectively. ORs [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were 3.08 (2.95-3.21) for current smoking, 1.48 (1.44-1.52) for BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² , 1.11 (1.08-1.15) for HbA_1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%), 1.03 (1.00-1.06) for SBP ≥ 140 mmHg and 0.87 (0.84-0.90) for total cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

Socio-economic deprivation is associated with higher prevalence of smoking, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and HbA_1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%), and lower prevalence of total cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/l among people with type 2 diabetes in Scotland. Effective approaches to reducing inequalities are required as well as reducing risk factor prevalence across the whole population.

Developing and evaluating a tool to measure general practice productivity: a multimethod study

Background

Systems for measuring the performance of general practices are extremely limited.

Objectives

The aim was to develop, pilot test and evaluate a measure of productivity that can be applied across all typical general practices in England, and that may result in improvements in practice, thereby leading to better patient outcomes.

Methods

Stage 1 – the approach used was based on the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES). Through 16 workshops with 80 general practice staff and 72 patient representatives, the objectives of general practices were identified, as were indicators that could measure these objectives and systems to convert the indicators into an effectiveness score and a productivity index. This was followed by a consensus exercise involving a face-to-face meeting with 16 stakeholders and an online survey with 27 respondents. An online version of the tool [termed the General Practice Effectiveness Tool (GPET)] and detailed guidance were created. Stage 2 – 51 practices were trained to use the GPET for up to 6 months, entering data on each indicator monthly and getting automated feedback on changes in effectiveness over time. The feasibility and acceptability of the GPET were examined via 38 telephone interviews with practice representatives, an online survey of practice managers and two focus groups with patient representatives.

Results

The workshops resulted in 11 objectives across four performance areas: (1) clinical care, (2) practice management, (3) patient focus and (4) external focus. These were measured by 52 indicators, gathered from clinical information systems, practice records, checklists, a short patient questionnaire and a short staff questionnaire. The consensus exercise suggested that this model was appropriate, but that the tool would be of more benefit in tracking productivity within practices than in performance management. Thirty-eight out of 51 practices provided monthly data, but only 28 practices did so for the full period. Limited time and personnel changes made participation difficult for some. Over the pilot period, practice effectiveness increased significantly. Perceptions of the GPET were varied. Usefulness was given an average rating of 4.5 out of 10.0. Ease of use was more positive, scoring 5.6 out of 10.0. Five indicators were highlighted as problematic to gather, and 27% of practices had difficulties entering data. Feedback from interviews suggested difficulties using the online system and finding time to make use of feedback. Most practices could not provide sufficient monthly financial data to calculate a conventional productivity index.

Limitations

It was not possible to create a measure that provides comparability between all practices, and most practices could not provide sufficient financial data to create a productivity index, leaving an effectiveness measure instead. Having a relatively small number of practices, with no control group, limited this study, and there was a limited timescale for the testing and evaluation.

Implications

The GPET has demonstrated some viability as a tool to aid practice improvement. The model devised could serve as a basis for measuring effectiveness in general practice more widely.

Future work

Some additional research is needed to refine the GPET. Enhanced testing with a control sample would evaluate whether or not it is the use of the GPET that leads to improved performance.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.