Nicholas Steel

Pay-for-Performance in the United Kingdom: Impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework—A Systematic Review

PURPOSE Primary care practices in the United Kingdom have received substantial financial rewards for achieving standards set out in the Quality and Outcomes Framework since April 2004. This article reviews the growing evidence for the impact of the framework on the quality of primary medical care. METHODS Five hundred seventy-five articles were identified by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases, and from the reference lists of published reviews and articles. One hundred twenty-four relevant articles were assessed using a modified Downs and Black rating scale for 110 observational studies and a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme rating scale for 14 qualitative studies. Ninety-four studies were included in the review. RESULTS Quality of care for incentivized conditions during the first year of the framework improved at a faster rate than the preintervention trend and subsequently returned to prior rates of improvement. There were modest cost-effective reductions in mortality and hospital admissions in some domains. Differences in performance narrowed in deprived areas compared with nondeprived areas. Achievement for conditions outside the framework was lower initially and has worsened in relative terms since inception. Some doctors reported improved data recording and teamwork, and nurses enhanced specialist skills. Both groups believed that the person-centeredness of consultations and continuity were negatively affected. Patients’ satisfaction with continuity declined, with little change in other domains of patient experience. CONCLUSIONS Observed improvements in quality of care for chronic diseases in the framework were modest, and the impact on costs, professional behavior, and patient experience remains uncertain. Further research is needed into how to improve quality across different domains, while minimizing costs and any unintended adverse effects of payment for performance schemes. Health care organizations should remain cautious about the benefits of similar schemes.

Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study.

Objectives To understand the effects of a large scale ‘payment for performance’ scheme (the Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF]) on professional roles and the delivery of primary care in the English National Health Service. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interview study. Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed during 2006: one general practitioner and one practice nurse in 12 general practices in eastern England with a broad range of sociodemographic and organizational characteristics. Results Participants reported substantial improvements in teamwork and in the organization, consistency and recording of care for conditions incentivized in the scheme, but not for non-incentivized conditions. The need to carry out and record specific clinical activities was felt to have changed the emphasis from ‘patient led’ consultations and listening to patients’ concerns. Loss of continuity of care and of patient choice were described. Nurses experienced increased workload but enjoyed more autonomy and job satisfaction. Doctors acknowledged improved disease management and teamwork but expressed unease about ‘box-ticking’ and increased demands of team supervision, despite better terms and conditions. Doctors were less motivated to achieve performance indicators where they disputed the evidence on which they were based. Participants expressed little engagement with results of patient surveys or patient involvement initiatives. Some participants described data manipulation to maximize practice income. Many felt overwhelmed by the flow of policy initiatives. Conclusions Payment for performance is driving major changes in the roles and organization of English primary health care teams. Non-incentivized activities and patients’ concerns may receive less clinical attention. Practitioners would benefit from improved dissemination of the evidence justifying the inclusion of new performance indicators in the QOF.

Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England.

Objective To assess the receipt of effective healthcare interventions in England by adults aged 50 or more with serious health conditions. Design National structured survey questionnaire with face to face interviews covering medical panel endorsed quality of care indicators for both publicly and privately provided care. Setting Private households across England. Participants 8688 participants in the English longitudinal study of ageing, of whom 4417 reported diagnoses of one or more of 13 conditions. Main outcome measures Percentage of indicated interventions received by eligible participants for 32 clinical indicators and seven questions on patient centred care, and aggregate scores. Results Participants were eligible for 19 082 items of indicated care. Receipt of indicated care varied substantially by condition. The percentage of indicated care received by eligible participants was highest for ischaemic heart disease (83%, 95% confidence interval 80% to 86%), followed by hearing problems (79%, 77% to 81%), pain management (78%, 73% to 83%), diabetes (74%, 72% to 76%), smoking cessation (74%, 71% to 76%), hypertension (72%, 69% to 76%), stroke (65%, 54% to 76%), depression (64%, 57% to 70%), patient centred care (58%, 57% to 60%), poor vision (58%, 54% to 63%), osteoporosis (53%, 49% to 57%), urinary incontinence (51%, 47% to 54%), falls management (44%, 37% to 51%), osteoarthritis (29%, 26% to 32%), and overall (62%, 62% to 63%). Substantially more indicated care was received for general medical (74%, 73% to 76%) than for geriatric conditions (57%, 55% to 58%), and for conditions included in the general practice pay for performance contract (75%, 73% to 76%) than excluded from it (58%, 56% to 59%). Conclusions Shortfalls in receipt of basic recommended care by adults aged 50 or more with common health conditions in England were most noticeable in areas associated with disability and frailty, but few areas were exempt. Efforts to improve care have substantial scope to achieve better health outcomes and particularly need to include chronic conditions that affect quality of life of older people.

Undiagnosed diabetes - data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Aims  Diabetes UK estimates a quarter of UK cases of diabetes are undiagnosed; 750 000 people have undiagnosed diabetes in addition to 2.25 million with known diabetes, but research studies examining this are contradictory. The aim was to determine the prevalence of, and risk factors for, undiagnosed diabetes in the population of England aged > 50 years and to calculate the percentage of cases of undiagnosed diabetes.

Developing quality indicators for older adults: transfer from the USA to the UK is feasible

Background: Measurement of the quality of health care is essential for quality improvement, and patients are an underused source of data about quality of care. We describe the adaptation of a set of USA quality indicators for use in patient interview surveys in England, to measure the extent to which older patients receive a broad range of effective healthcare interventions in both primary and secondary care. Method: One hundred and nineteen quality indicators covering 16 clinical areas, based on a set of indicators for the care of vulnerable elderly patients in the USA, were reviewed by a panel of 10 clinical experts in England. A modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used and panel members were supplied with literature reviews summarising the evidence base for each quality indicator. The indicators were sent for comment before the panel meeting to UK charitable organisations for older people. Results: The panel rated 102 of the 119 indicators (86%) as valid for use in England; 17 (14%) were rejected as invalid. All 58 indicators about treatment or continuity and follow up were rated as valid compared with just over half (13 of 24) of the indicators about screening. Conclusions: These 102 indicators are suitable for use in patient interview surveys, including the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). The systematic measurement of quality of care at the population level and identification of gaps in quality is essential for quality improvement. There is potential for transfer of quality indicators between countries, at least for the health care of older people.

Recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis: an observational study

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic disease in the UK, with greater prevalence in women, older people, and those with poorer socioeconomic status. Effective treatments are available, yet little is known about the quality of primary care for this disabling condition. AIM To measure the recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and assess variations by patient and/or practice characteristics. DESIGN OF STUDY Retrospective observational study. SETTING Eighteen general practices in England. METHOD Records of 320/393 randomly selected patients with osteoarthritis (response rate 81%) were reviewed. High-quality health care was specified by nine quality indicators. Logistic regression modelling assessed variations in quality by age, sex, deprivation, severity, time since diagnosis, and practice size. RESULTS There was substantial variation in the recorded achievement of individual indicators (range 5% to 90%). The percentage of eligible patients whose records show that they received care in the form of information provision ranged from 17% to 30%. For regular assessment indicators the range was 27% to 43%, and for treatment indicators the range was 5% to 90%. Recorded achievement of quality indicators was higher in those with more severe osteoarthritis (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI=1.13 to 1.69) and in older patients (OR 1.14, 95% CI=1.02 to 1.28). There were no significant variations by deprivation score. CONCLUSION This study has demonstrated the feasibility of using existing robust quality indicators to measure the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and has found considerable scope for improvement in the recording of high-quality care. The lack of variation between practices suggests that system-level initiatives may be needed to achieve improvement. One challenge will be to improve care for all, without losing the equitable distribution of care identified.

The UK pay-for-performance programme in primary care: estimation of population mortality reduction

BACKGROUND General practices in the UK contract with the government to receive additional payments for high-quality primary care. Little is known about the resulting impact on population health. AIM To estimate the potential reduction in population mortality from implementation of the pay-for-performance contract in England. DESIGN OF STUDY Cross-sectional and modelling study. SETTING Primary care in England. METHOD Twenty-five clinical quality indicators in the contract had controlled trial evidence of mortality benefit. This was combined with condition prevalence, and the differences in performance before and after contract implementation, to estimate the potential mortality reduction per indicator. Improvement was adjusted for pre-existing trends where data were available. RESULTS The 2004 contract potentially reduced mortality by 11 lives per 100 000 people (lower-upper estimates 7-16) over 1 year, as performance improved from baseline to the target for full incentive payment. If all eligible patients were treated, over and above the target, 56 (29-81) lives per 100 000 might have been saved. For the 2006 contract, mortality reduction was effectively zero, because new baseline performance for a typical practice had already exceeded the target performance for full payment. CONCLUSION The contract may have delivered substantial health gain, but potential health gain was limited by performance targets for full payment being set lower than typical baseline performance. Information on both baseline performance and population health gain should inform decisions about future selection of indicators for pay-for-performance schemes, and the level of performance at which full payment is triggered.

A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients

Objectives Primary care patients typically have less severe illness than those in hospital and may be overtreated if clinical guideline evidence is inappropriately generalized. We aimed to assess whether guideline recommendations for primary care were based on relevant research. Study Design and Setting Literature review of all publications cited in support of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations for primary care. The relevance to primary care of all 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011, and their recommendations, was assessed by an expert panel. Results Twenty-two of 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011 were relevant to primary care. These 22 guidelines contained 1,185 recommendations, of which 495 were relevant to primary care, and cited evidence from 1,573 research publications. Of these cited publications, 590 (38%, range by guideline 6–74%) were based on patients typical of primary care. Conclusion Nearly two-third (62%) of publications cited to support primary care recommendations were of uncertain relevance to patients in primary care. Guideline development groups should more clearly identify which recommendations are intended for primary care and uncertainties about the relevance of the supporting evidence to primary care patients, to avoid potential overtreatment.

Mind the gap! Evaluation of the performance gap attributable to exception reporting and target thresholds in the new GMS contract: National database analysis

BackgroundThe 2003 revision of the UK GMS contract rewards general practices for performance against clinical quality indicators. Practices can exempt patients from treatment, and can receive maximum payment for less than full coverage of eligible patients. This paper aims to estimate the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care (the pay-performance gap), and to estimate how much of the gap is attributable respectively to thresholds and to exception reporting.MethodsAnalysis of Quality Outcomes Framework data in the National Primary Care Database and exception reporting data from the Information Centre from 8407 practices in England in 2005 – 6. The main outcome measures were the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care at the practice level, both for individual indicators and a combined composite score. An additional outcome was the percentage of that gap attributable respectively to exception reporting and maximum threshold targets set at less than 100%.ResultsThe mean pay-performance gap for the 65 aggregated clinical indicators was 13.3% (range 2.9% to 48%). 52% of this gap (6.9% of eligible patients) is attributable to thresholds being set at less than 100%, and 48% to patients being exception reported. The gap was greater than 25% in 9 indicators: beta blockers and cholesterol control in heart disease; cholesterol control in stroke; influenza immunization in asthma; blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol control in diabetes; seizures in epilepsy and treatment of hypertension.ConclusionThreshold targets and exception reporting introduce an incentive ceiling, which substantially reduces the percentage of eligible patients that UK practices need to treat in order to receive maximum incentive payments for delivering that care. There are good clinical reasons for exception reporting, but after unsuitable patients have been exempted from treatment, there is no reason why all maximum thresholds should not be 100%, whilst retaining the current lower thresholds to provide incentives for lower performing practices.

The Quality and Outcomes Framework—where next?

The UK’s pay for performance system for primary care has produced some benefits, including reducing inequalities between practices, but Stephen Gillam and Nicholas Steel argue that it is time to reduce the proportion of general practitioners’ income that it governs