-
Quality of Life Research 11/2012; · 2.30 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) was introduced in 2004/5, linking remuneration for general practices to recorded quality of care for chronic conditions, including diabetes mellitus. We assessed the effect of the incentives on recorded quality of care for diabetes patients and its variation by patient and practice characteristics. METHODS: Using the General Practice Research Database we selected a stratified sample of 148 English general practices in England, contributing data from 2000/1 to 2006/7, and obtained a random sample of 653 500 patients in which 23 920 diabetes patients identified. We quantified annually recorded quality of care at the patient-level, as measured by the 17 QOF diabetes indicators, in a composite score and analysed it longitudinally using an Interrupted Time Series design. RESULTS: Recorded quality of care improved for all subgroups in the pre-incentive period. In the first year of the incentives, composite quality improved over-and-above this pre-incentive trend by 14.2% (13.7-14.6%). By the third year the improvement above trend was smaller, but still statistically significant, at 7.3% (6.7-8.0%). After 3 years of the incentives, recorded levels of care varied significantly for patient gender, age, years of previous care, number of co-morbid conditions and practice diabetes prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of financial incentives was associated with improvements in the recorded quality of diabetes care in the first year. These improvements included some measures of disease control, but most captured only documentation of recommended aspects of clinical assessment, not patient management or outcomes of care. Improvements in subsequent years were more modest. Variation in care between population groups diminished under the incentives, but remained substantial in some cases.
BMJ quality & safety 08/2012;
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: We investigated the effect of parents' mental health, life events, and home life (among other factors) on adolescents'/youths' mental health, whether such an effect varies when several variables are assessed jointly, and also whether the informant source of the mental health problem modifies the estimations. METHODS: We studied a representative sample of 454 Spanish adolescents/youths studied longitudinally (2 assessments, 3 years apart). We considered factors associated with adolescents'/youths' mental health (conduct, emotional, and hyperactivity scores [SDQ]): risk factors (parents' mental health and life events) and mediators (social and financial support). Structural equation modeling was applied. We constructed two models: (a) with parents' SDQ responses and (b) with self-reported SDQ responses (in a subsample of N = 260). RESULTS: Model fit was adequate for parents' appraisal. Parents' mental health (p < 0.05) and undesirable life events (p < 0.05) were the most important risk factors. The same model showed poorer fit when self-reported measures were used. Home life exerted a stronger protective effect on adolescents'/youths' mental health when reported by adolescents/youths. The negative effect of parents' mental health was significantly protected by home life in emotional [-0.14 (0.07)] and hyperactivity scores [-0.2 (0.08)]. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the presence of other factors, parents' mental health has an important effect on adolescents'/youths' mental health. Good levels of home life are protective, especially when adolescents'/youths' mental health is self-reported.
Quality of Life Research 04/2012; · 2.30 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many patients consulting in primary care have multiple conditions (multimorbidity). Aims of this review were to identify measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden suitable for use in research in primary care and community populations, and to investigate their validity in relation to anticipated associations with patient characteristics, process measures, and health outcomes.
Studies were identified using searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2009 and bibliographies.
Included were 194 articles describing 17 different measures. Commonly used measures included disease counts (n = 98), Chronic Disease Score (CDS)/RxRisk (n = 17), Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System (n = 25), the Charlson index (n = 38), the Cumulative Index Illness Rating Scale (CIRS; n = 10) and the Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI; n = 6). Studies that compared measures suggest their predictive validity for the same outcome differs only slightly. Evidence is strongest for the ACG System, Charlson index, or disease counts in relation to care utilization; for the ACG System in relation to costs; for Charlson index in relation to mortality; and for disease counts or Charlson index in relation to quality of life. Simple counts of diseases or medications perform almost as well as complex measures in predicting most outcomes. Combining measures can improve validity.
The measures most commonly used in primary care and community settings are disease counts, Charlson index, ACG System, CIRS, CDS, and DUSOI. Different measures are most appropriate according to the outcome of interest. Choice of measure will also depend on the type of data available. More research is needed to directly compare performance of different measures.
The Annals of Family Medicine 03/2012; 10(2):134-41. · 5.36 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the reasons why practices exempt patients from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay for performance scheme (exception reporting) and to identify the characteristics of general practices associated with informed dissent.
Retrospective analysis.
Data for 2008-9 extracted from the clinical computing systems of general practices in England.
8229 English family practices.
Rates of exception reporting for 37 clinical quality indicators, associations of patient and general practice factors with exception rates, and financial gain for practices relating to their use of exception reporting.
The median rate of exception reporting was 2.7% (interquartile range 1.9-3.9%) overall and 0.44% (0.14-1.1%) for informed dissent, but variation in rates was wide between practices and across indicators. Common reasons for exception reporting were logistical (40.6% of exceptions), clinical contraindication (18.7%), and patient informed dissent (30.1%). Higher rates of informed dissent were associated with: higher numbers of registered patients, higher levels of local area deprivation, and failure of the practice to secure maximum remuneration in the previous year. Exception reporting increased the cost of the scheme by £30,844,500 (€36,877,700; $49,053,200) (£0.58 per patient), with two indicators accounting for a quarter of this additional cost.
The provision to exception report enables practices to exempt dissenting patients without being financially penalised. Relatively few patients were excluded for informed dissent, however, suggesting that the incentivised activities were broadly acceptable to patients.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 01/2012; 344:e2405.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Primary care professionals often manage patients with multiple long-term health conditions, but managing multimorbidity is challenging given time and resource constraints and interactions between conditions.
To explore GP and nurse perceptions of multimorbidity and the influence on service organization and clinical decision making.
A qualitative interview study with primary care professionals in practices in Greater Manchester, U.K. Interviews were conducted with 15 GPs and 10 practice nurses.
Primary care professionals identified tensions between delivering care to meet quality targets and fulfilling the patient's agenda, tensions which are exacerbated in multimorbidity. They were aware of the inconvenience suffered by patients through attendance at multiple clinic appointments when care was structured around individual conditions. They reported difficulties managing patients with multimorbidity in limited consultation time, which led to adoption of an 'additive-sequential' decision-making model which dealt with problems in priority order until consultation resources were exhausted, when further management was deferred. Other challenges included the need for patients to co-ordinate their care, the difficulties of self-management support in multimorbidity and problems of making sense of the relationships between physical and mental health. Doctor and nurse accounts included limited consideration of multimorbidity in terms of the interactions between conditions or synergies between management of different conditions.
Primary care professionals identify a number of challenges in care for multimorbidity and adopt a particular model of decision making to deliver care for multiple individual conditions. However, they did not describe specific decision making around managing multimorbidity per se.
Family Practice 05/2011; 28(5):579-87. · 1.50 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In developed countries, primary health care increasingly involves the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions, referred to as multimorbidity.
To describe the epidemiology of multimorbidity and relationships between multimorbidity and primary care consultation rates and continuity of care. DESIGN OF STUDy: Retrospective cohort study.
Random sample of 99 997 people aged 18 years or over registered with 182 general practices in England contributing data to the General Practice Research Database.
Multimorbidity was defined using two approaches: people with multiple chronic conditions included in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, and people identified using the Johns Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG®) Case-Mix System. The determinants of multimorbidity (age, sex, area deprivation) and relationships with consultation rate and continuity of care were examined using regression models.
Sixteen per cent of patients had more than one chronic condition included in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, but these people accounted for 32% of all consultations. Using the wider ACG list of conditions, 58% of people had multimorbidity and they accounted for 78% of consultations. Multimorbidity was strongly related to age and deprivation. People with multimorbidity had higher consultation rates and less continuity of care compared with people without multimorbidity.
Multimorbidity is common in the population and most consultations in primary care involve people with multimorbidity. These people are less likely to receive continuity of care, although they may be more likely to gain from it.
British Journal of General Practice 01/2011; 61(582):e12-21. · 1.83 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To investigate whether the incentive scheme for UK general practitioners led them to neglect activities not included in the scheme.
Longitudinal analysis of achievement rates for 42 activities (23 included in incentive scheme, 19 not included) selected from 428 identified indicators of quality of care.
148 general practices in England (653 500 patients).
Achievement rates projected from trends in the pre-incentive period (2000-1 to 2002-3) and actual rates in the first three years of the scheme (2004-5 to 2006-7).
Achievement rates improved for most indicators in the pre-incentive period. There were significant increases in the rate of improvement in the first year of the incentive scheme (2004-5) for 22 of the 23 incentivised indicators. Achievement for these indicators reached a plateau after 2004-5, but quality of care in 2006-7 remained higher than that predicted by pre-incentive trends for 14 incentivised indicators. There was no overall effect on the rate of improvement for non-incentivised indicators in the first year of the scheme, but by 2006-7 achievement rates were significantly below those predicted by pre-incentive trends.
There were substantial improvements in quality for all indicators between 2001 and 2007. Improvements associated with financial incentives seem to have been achieved at the expense of small detrimental effects on aspects of care that were not incentivised.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 01/2011; 342:d3590.
-
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 01/2010; 340:c1717.
-
The Medical journal of Australia 07/2008; 189(2):93-4. · 2.81 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study was aimed to develop a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assist the choice of instruments.
An expert panel adapted the eight attributes proposed by the Medical Outcomes Trust as evaluation review criteria, created items to evaluate them, and included a response scale for each item. A pilot test was designed to test the new tool's feasibility and to obtain preliminary information concerning its psychometric properties. The Spanish versions of five measures were selected for assessment: the SF-36 Health Survey, the Nottingham Health Profile, the COOP-WONCA charts, the EuroQol-5D, and the Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC-QLQ-C30. We assessed the new tool's reliability (Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and construct validity.
The new EMPRO (Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes) tool has 39 items covering eight key attributes: conceptual and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, alternative modes of administration, and cross-cultural and linguistic adaptations. Internal consistency was high (alpha = 0.95) as was interrater concordance (ICC: 0.87-0.94). Positive associations consistent with a priori hypotheses were observed between EMPRO attribute scores and the number of articles identified for the measures, the years elapsed since the publication of the first article, and the number of citations.
A new tool for the standardized assessment of PRO measures is available. It has shown good preliminary reliability and validity and should be a useful aid to investigators who need to choose between alternative measures. Further assessment of the tool is necessary.
Value in Health 02/2008; 11(4):700-8. · 2.19 Impact Factor
-
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/2007; 298(14):1636; author reply 1636-7. · 30.03 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Quality-of-life (QOL) instruments used in clinical research can provide important evidence to inform decisions about alternative treatments. This is particularly true when patients, such as those with cancer who are contemplating toxic chemotherapy, face tradeoffs between quantity of life and QOL or when the primary goal of therapy is to improve how patients feel. Surrogate measures (cardiac function, exercise capacity, bone density, tumor size) are inadequate substitutes for direct measurement of QOL. Quality-of-life measures will be most valuable when they comprehensively measure aspects of QOL that are both important to patients and likely to be influenced by therapy, when the QOL measurement instruments are valid (measuring what is intended) and responsive (able to detect all important changes, even if small), and when the results are readily interpretable (determining whether treatment-related changes are trivial, small but important, or large). Researchers are finding new, imaginative ways to help clinicians understand the magnitude of treatment impact on QOL. Additionally, QOL measures may be useful in clinical practice. Recent results from well-designed randomized controlled trials suggest that information on patient QOL provided to clinicians might, in some circumstances, result in benefits for these patients. Further investigation is warranted to confirm these observations and to define the particular combination of methods and settings most likely to yield important benefits.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 11/2007; 82(10):1229-39. · 5.70 Impact Factor
-
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 07/2007; 334(7604):1128.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Major primary care reforms have been introduced in recent years in the United Kingdom, including financial incentives to improve clinical quality and provide more rapid access to care. Little is known about the impact of these changes on patient experience. We examine patient reports of quality of care between 2003 and 2007, including random samples of patients on practice lists and patients with long-term conditions.
We conducted a cross-sectional design study of family practices in which questionnaires were sent to serial samples of patients in 42 representative general practices in England. Questionnaires sent to samples of patients with chronic disease (asthma, angina, and diabetes) and random samples of adult patients (excluding patients who reported any long-term condition) in 2003, 2005, and 2007 addressed issues of access, communication, continuity of care, coordination, nursing care, and overall satisfaction.
There were no significant changes in quality of care reported by either group of patients between 2003 and 2007 for communication, nursing care, coordination, and overall satisfaction. Some aspects of access improved significantly for patients with chronic disease, but not for the random samples of patients. Patients in both samples reported seeing their usual physician less often and gave lower satisfaction ratings for continuity of care. Most scores were significantly higher for the chronic illness samples than for the random samples of patients in 2003, even after adjusting for age.
There was a modest improvement in access to care for patients with chronic illness, but all patients now find it somewhat harder to obtain continuity of care. This outcome may be related to the incentives to provide rapid appointments or to the increased number of specialized clinics in primary care. The possibility of unintended effects needs to be considered when introducing pay for performance schemes.
The Annals of Family Medicine 8(6):499-506. · 5.36 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Increasing use of specialist services in the United States is leading to a perception of a specialist shortage. Little is known, however, about the nature of care provided by this secondary level of services. The aim of this study was to examine the content of care provided by specialists in community settings, including visits for which the patient had been referred by another physician.
Nationally representative visit data were obtained from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for the years 2002 through 2004. To describe the nature of care, we developed a taxonomy of office-based visit types and constructed logistic regression models allowing for adjusted comparisons of specialty types.
Overall, 46.3% of visits were for routine follow-up and preventive care of patients already known to the specialist. Referrals accounted for only 30.4% of all visits. Specialists were more likely to report sharing care with other physicians for referred, compared with not referred, patients (odds ratio [OR] = 2.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.52-3.55). Overall, 73.6% of all visits resulted in a return appointment with the same physician, in more than one-half of all cases as a result of a routine or preventive care visit.
Ambulatory office-based activity of specialists includes a large share of routine and preventive care for patients already known, not referred, to the physician. It is likely that many of these services could be managed in primary care settings, lessening demand for specialists and improving coordination of care.
The Annals of Family Medicine 7(2):104-11. · 5.36 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Comorbidity is associated with worse health outcomes, more complex clinical management, and increased health care costs. There is no agreement, however, on the meaning of the term, and related constructs, such as multimorbidity, morbidity burden, and patient complexity, are not well conceptualized. In this article, we review definitions of comorbidity and their relationship to related constructs. We show that the value of a given construct lies in its ability to explain a particular phenomenon of interest within the domains of (1) clinical care, (2) epidemiology, or (3) health services planning and financing. Mechanisms that may underlie the coexistence of 2 or more conditions in a patient (direct causation, associated risk factors, heterogeneity, independence) are examined, and the implications for clinical care considered. We conclude that the more precise use of constructs, as proposed in this article, would lead to improved research into the phenomenon of ill health in clinical care, epidemiology, and health services.
The Annals of Family Medicine 7(4):357-63. · 5.36 Impact Factor
