Do the UK government's new Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores adequately measure primary care performance? A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data

被引:52
|
作者
Downing, Amy
Rudge, Gavin
Cheng, Yaping
Tu, Yu-Kang
Keen, Justin
Gilthorpe, Mark S.
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Canc Epidemiol Grp, Ctr Biostat & Epidemiol, Leeds LS2 9LN, W Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Birmingham, Hlth Serv Res, Dept Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
[3] Univ Leeds, Biostat Unit, Ctr Biostat & Epidemiol, Leeds LS2 9LN, W Yorkshire, England
[4] Univ Leeds, Ctr Hlth & Social Care, Leeds LS2 9PL, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
D O I
10.1186/1472-6963-7-166
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: General practitioners' remuneration is now linked directly to the scores attained in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). The success of this approach depends in part on designing a robust and clinically meaningful set of indicators. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which measures of health observed in practice populations are correlated with their QOF scores, after accounting for the established associations between health outcomes and socio-demographics. Methods: QOF data for the period April 2004 to March 2005 were obtained for all general practices in two English Primary Care Trusts. These data were linked to data for emergency hospital admissions (for asthma, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary hear disease, diabetes, stroke and all other conditions) and all cause mortality for the period September 2004 to August 2005. Multilevel logistic regression models explored the association between health outcomes (hospital admission and death) and practice QOF scores ( clinical, additional services and organisational domains), age, sex and socio-economic deprivation. Results: Higher clinical domain scores were generally associated with lower admission rates and this was significant for cancer and other conditions in PCT 2. Higher scores in the additional services domain were associated with higher admission rates, significantly so for asthma, CHD, stroke and other conditions in PCT 1 and cancer in PCT 2. Little association was observed between the organisational domain scores and admissions. The relationship between the QOF variables and mortality was less clear. Being female was associated with fewer admissions for cancer and CHD and lower mortality rates. Increasing age was mainly associated with an increased number of events. Increasing deprivation was associated with higher admission rates for all conditions and with higher mortality rates. Conclusion: The associations between QOF scores and emergency admissions and mortality were small and inconsistent, whilst the impact of socio-economic deprivation on the outcomes was much stronger. These results have implications for the use of target-based remuneration of general practitioners and emphasise the need to tackle inequalities and improve the health of disadvantaged groups and the population as a whole.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Do the UK government's new Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores adequately measure primary care performance? A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data
    Amy Downing
    Gavin Rudge
    Yaping Cheng
    Yu-Kang Tu
    Justin Keen
    Mark S Gilthorpe
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 7
  • [2] Exploring China’s western and central county systems performance measured by outcomes framework scores—A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data
    Jun Shi
    Liang Zhang
    Yue Liu
    Jiangbo Wang
    Chris Scarf
    Juyang Xiong
    [J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology [Medical Sciences], 2011, 31 : 419 - 425
  • [3] Exploring China's Western and Central County Systems Performance Measured by Outcomes Framework Scores-A Cross-sectional Survey of Routine Healthcare Data
    石军
    张亮
    刘岳
    王江波
    熊巨洋
    [J]. Current Medical Science, 2011, 31 (04) : 419 - 425
  • [4] Exploring China's western and central county systems performance measured by outcomes framework scores-A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data
    Shi, Jun
    Zhang, Liang
    Liu, Yue
    Wang, Jiangbo
    Scarf, Chris
    Xiong, Juyang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HUAZHONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2011, 31 (04) : 419 - 425
  • [5] The association between quality of primary care, deprivation and cardiovascular outcomes: a cross-sectional study using data from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework
    Kiran, T.
    Hutchings, A.
    Dhalla, I. A.
    Furlong, C.
    Jacobson, B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2010, 64 (10): : 927 - 934
  • [6] The quality of prison primary care: cross-sectional analyses of prison healthcare data in Northern England
    McLintock, Kate
    Foy, Robbie
    Canvin, Krysia
    Bellass, Sue
    Hearty, Pip
    Wright, Nat
    Cunningham, Marie
    Seanor, Nicola
    Sheard, Laura
    Farragher, Tracey
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2023, 73
  • [7] The impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) on the recording of smoking targets in primary care medical records: cross-sectional analyses from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database
    Jaspal S Taggar
    Tim Coleman
    Sarah Lewis
    Lisa Szatkowski
    [J]. BMC Public Health, 12
  • [8] The impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) on the recording of smoking targets in primary care medical records: cross-sectional analyses from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database
    Taggar, Jaspal S.
    Coleman, Tim
    Lewis, Sarah
    Szatkowski, Lisa
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2012, 12
  • [9] Do primary care physicians' own AUDIT scores predict their use of brief alcohol intervention?: A cross-sectional survey
    Aalto, M
    Hyvönen, S
    Seppä, K
    [J]. DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE, 2006, 83 (02) : 169 - 173
  • [10] The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme and spirometry: rewarding quality or just quantity? A cross-sectional study in Rotherham, UK
    Mark Strong
    Gail South
    Robin Carlisle
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 9