Article

Does higher quality of diabetes management in family practice reduce unplanned hospital admissions?

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin A Block, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 09/2010; 46(1 Pt 1):27-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01184.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate the association between indicators of quality of diabetic management in English family practices and emergency hospital admissions for short-term complications of diabetes.
A total of 8,223 English family practices from 2001/2002 to 2006/2007.
Multiple regression analyses of associations between admissions and proportions of practice diabetic patients with good (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≤7.4 percent) and moderate (7.4 percent <HbA1c ≤10 percent) glycemic control. Covariates included diabetes prevalence, baseline admission rates, socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic characteristics.
Practice quality measures extracted from practice records linked with practice-level hospital admissions data and practice-level covariates data.
Practices with 1 percent more patients with moderate rather than poor glycemic control on average had 1.9 percent (95 percent CI: 1.1-2.6 percent) lower rates of emergency admissions for acute hyperglycemic complications. Having more patients with good rather than moderate control was not associated with lower admissions. There was no association of moderate or good control with hypoglycemic admissions.
Cross-sectionally, family practices with better quality of diabetes care had fewer emergency admissions for short-term complications of diabetes. Over time, after controlling for national trends in admissions, improvements in quality in a family practice were associated with a reduction in its admissions.

Full-text

Available from: Tim Doran, May 25, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
137 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the impact of a UK pay-for-performance indicator, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) dementia review, on three types of hospital admission for people with dementia: emergency admissions where dementia was the primary diagnosis; emergency admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs); and elective admissions for cataract, hip replacement, hernia, prostate disease, or hearing loss. Count data regression analyses of hospital admissions from 8,304 English general practices from 2006/7 to 2010/11. We identified relevant admissions from national Hospital Episode Statistics and aggregated them to practice level. We merged these with practice-level data on the QOF dementia review. In the base case, the exposure measure was the reported QOF register. As dementia is commonly under-diagnosed, we tested a predicted practice register based on consensus estimates. We adjusted for practice characteristics including measures of deprivation and uptake of a social benefit to purchase care services (Attendance Allowance). In the base case analysis, higher QOF achievement had no significant effect on any type of hospital admission. However, when the predicted register was used to account for under-diagnosis, a one-percentage point improvement in QOF achievement was associated with a small reduction in emergency admissions for both dementia (-0.1%; P=0.011) and ACSCs (-0.1%; P=0.001). In areas of greater deprivation, uptake of Attendance Allowance was consistently associated with significantly lower emergency admissions. In all analyses, practices with a higher proportion of nursing home patients had significantly lower admission rates for elective and emergency care. In one of three analyses at practice level, the QOF review for dementia was associated with a small but significant reduction in unplanned hospital admissions. Given the rising prevalence of dementia, increasing pressures on acute hospital beds and poor outcomes associated with hospital stays for this patient group, this small change may be clinically and economically relevant.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(3):e0121506. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121506 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To quantify the relationship between a national primary care pay-for-performance programme, the UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and all-cause and cause-specific premature mortality linked closely with conditions included in the framework. Longitudinal spatial study, at the level of the "lower layer super output area" (LSOA). 32482 LSOAs (neighbourhoods of 1500 people on average), covering the whole population of England (approximately 53.5 million), from 2007 to 2012. 8647 English general practices participating in the QOF for at least one year of the study period, including over 99% of patients registered with primary care. National pay-for-performance programme incentivising performance on over 100 quality-of-care indicators. All-cause and cause-specific mortality rates for six chronic conditions: diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. We used multiple linear regressions to investigate the relationship between spatially estimated recorded quality of care and mortality. All-cause and cause-specific mortality rates declined over the study period. Higher mortality was associated with greater area deprivation, urban location, and higher proportion of a non-white population. In general, there was no significant relationship between practice performance on quality indicators included in the QOF and all-cause or cause-specific mortality rates in the practice locality. Higher reported achievement of activities incentivised under a major, nationwide pay-for-performance programme did not seem to result in reduced incidence of premature death in the population. © Kontopantelis et al 2015.
    BMJ (online) 03/2015; 350(mar02 1). DOI:10.1136/bmj.h904 · 16.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) incentivises general practices in England to provide proactive care for people with serious mental illness (SMI) including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses. Better proactive primary care may reduce the risk of psychiatric admissions to hospital, but this has never been tested empirically. The QOF data set included 8234 general practices in England from 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. Rates of hospital admissions with primary diagnoses of SMI or bipolar disorder were estimated from national routine hospital data and aggregated to practice level. Poisson regression was used to analyse associations. Practices with higher achievement on the annual review for SMI patients (MH9), or that performed better on either of the two lithium indicators for bipolar patients (MH4 or MH5), had more psychiatric admissions. An additional 1% in achievement rates for MH9 was associated with an average increase in the annual practice admission rate of 0.19% (95% CI 0.10% to 0.28%) or 0.007 patients (95% CI 0.003 to 0.01). The positive association was contrary to expectation, but there are several possible explanations: better quality primary care may identify unmet need for secondary care; higher QOF achievement may not prevent the need for secondary care; individuals may receive their QOF checks postdischarge rather than prior to admission; individuals with more severe SMI may be more likely to be registered with practices with better QOF performance; and QOF may be a poor measure of the quality of care for people with SMI. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 04/2015; 5(4):e007342. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007342 · 2.06 Impact Factor