Funding for general practice in the next decade: life after QOF

Beyond empathy training for practitioners: Cultivating empathic healthcare systems and leadership

Empathic care benefits patients and practitioners, and empathy training for practitioners can enhance empathy. However, practitioners do not operate in a vacuum. For empathy to thrive, healthcare consultations must be situated in a nurturing milieu, guided by empathic, compassionate leaders. Empathy will be suppressed, or even reversed if practitioners are burned out and working in an unpleasant, under-resourced environment with increasingly poorly served and dissatisfied patients. Efforts to enhance empathy must therefore go beyond training practitioners to address system-level factors that foster empathy. These include patient education, cultivating empathic leadership, customer service training for reception staff, valuing cleaning and all ancillary staff, creating healing spaces, and using appropriate, efficiency saving technology to reduce the administrative burden on healthcare practitioners. We divide these elements into environmental factors, organisational factors, job factors, and individual characteristics.

Evaluation of the introduction of QOF quality improvement modules in English general practice: early findings from a rapid, qualitative exploration of implementation

Background

A 2018 review of the English primary care pay-for-performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework, suggested that it should evolve to better support holistic, patient-centred care and leadership for quality improvement (QI). From 2019, as part of the vision of change, financially incentivised QI cycles (initially in prescribing safety and end-of-life care), were introduced into the scheme.

Objectives

To conduct a rapid evaluation of general practice staff attitudes, experiences and plans in relation to the implementation of the first two QI modules. This study was commissioned by NHS England and will inform development of the QI programme.

Methods

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 practice managers from a range of practices across England. Interviews were audio recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. Anonymised data were reflexively thematically analysed using the framework method of analysis to identify common themes across the interviews.

Results

Participants reported broadly favourable views of incentivised QI, suggesting the prescribing safety module was easier to implement than the end-of-life module. Additional staff time needed and challenges of reviewing activities with other practices were reported as concerns. Some highlighted that local flexibility and influence on subject matter may improve the effectiveness of QI. Several questioned the choices of topic, recognising greater need and potential for improving quality of care in other clinical areas.

Conclusion

Practices supported the idea of financial incentivisation of QI, however, it will be important to ensure that focus on QI cycles in specific clinical areas does not have unintended effects. A key issue will be keeping up momentum with the introduction of new modules each year which are time consuming to carry out for time poor General Practitioners (GPs)/practices.

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.

Impact of multimorbidity on healthcare costs and utilisation: a systematic review of the UK literature

BACKGROUND

Managing multimorbidity is complex for both patients and healthcare systems. Patients with multimorbidity often use a variety of primary and secondary care services. Country-specific research exploring the healthcare utilisation and cost consequences of multimorbidity may inform future interventions and payment schemes in the UK.

AIM

To assess the relationship between multimorbidity, healthcare costs, and healthcare utilisation; and to determine how this relationship varies by disease combinations and healthcare components.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review.

METHOD

This systematic review followed the bidirectional citation searching to completion method. MEDLINE and grey literature were searched for UK studies since 2004. An iterative review of references and citations was completed. Authors from all articles selected were contacted and asked to check for completeness of UK evidence. The National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool was used to assess risk of bias. Data were extracted, findings synthesised, and study heterogeneity assessed; meta-analysis was conducted when possible.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were identified: seven predicting healthcare costs and 10 healthcare utilisation. Multimorbidity was found to be associated with increased total costs, hospital costs, care transition costs, primary care use, dental care use, emergency department use, and hospitalisations. Several studies demonstrated the high cost of depression and of hospitalisation associated with multimorbidity.

CONCLUSION

In the UK, multimorbidity increases healthcare utilisation and costs of primary, secondary, and dental care. Future research is needed to examine whether integrated care schemes offer efficiencies in healthcare provision for multimorbidity.

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.

Epidemiology of adult overweight recording and management by UK GPs: a systematic review

Background

Primary care guidelines for managing adult overweight/obesity recommend routine measurement of body mass index (BMI) and the offer of weight management interventions. Many studies state that this is rarely done, but the extent to which overweight/obesity is recognised, considered, and documented in routine care has not been determined.

Aim

To identify the epidemiology of adult overweight documentation and management by UK GPs.

Design and setting

A systematic review of studies since 2006 from eight electronic databases and grey literature.

Method

Included studies measured the proportion of adult patients with documented BMI or weight loss intervention offers in routine primary care in the UK. A narrative synthesis reports the prevalence and pattern of the outcomes.

Results

In total, 2845 articles were identified, and seven were included; four with UK-wide data and three with regional-level data. The proportion of patients with a documented BMI was 58–79% (28–37% within a year). For overweight/obese patients alone, 43–52% had a recent BMI record, and 15–42% had a documented intervention offer. BMI documentation was positively associated with older age, female sex, higher BMI, coexistent chronic disease, and higher deprivation.

Conclusion

BMI is under-recorded and weight loss interventions are under-referred for primary care adult patients in the UK despite the obesity register in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). The review identified likely underserved groups such as younger males and otherwise healthy overweight/obese individuals to whom attention should now be directed. The proposed amendment to the obesity register QOF could prompt improvements but has not been adopted for 2017.