Abstract 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.
The COVID-19 pandemic has modified organisation and processes of primary care. In this paper, we aim to summarise experiences of international primary care systems. We explored personal accounts and ...findings in reporting on the early experiences from primary care during the pandemic, through the online Global Forum on Universal Health Coverage and Primary Health Care.
During the early stage of the pandemic, primary care continued as the first point of contact to the health system but was poorly informed by policy makers on how to fulfil its role and ill equipped to provide care while protecting staff and patients against further spread of the infection. In many countries, the creativity and initiatives of local health professionals led to the introduction or extension of the use of telephone, e-mail and virtual consulting, and introduced triaging to separate 'suspected' COVID-19 from non-COVID-19 care. There were substantial concerns of collateral damage to the health of the population due to abandoned or postponed routine care.
The pandemic presents important lessons to strengthen health systems through better connection between public health, primary care, and secondary care to cope better with future waves of this and other pandemics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics views retail-based clinics (RBCs) as an inappropriate source of primary care for pediatric patients, as they fragment medical care and are detrimental to the ...medical home concept of longitudinal and coordinated care. This statement updates the original 2006 American Academy of Pediatrics statement on RBCs, which flatly opposed these sites as appropriate for pediatric care, discussing the shift in RBC focus and comparing attributes of RBCs with those of the pediatric medical home.
The gender gap in physician pay is often attributed in part to women working fewer hours than men, but evidence to date is limited by self-report and a lack of detail regarding clinical revenue and ...gender differences in practice style.
Using national all-payer claims and data from electronic health records, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 24.4 million primary care office visits in 2017 and performed comparisons between female and male physicians in the same practices. Our primary independent variable was physician gender; outcomes included visit revenue, visit counts, days worked, and observed visit time (interval between the initiation and the termination of a visit). We created multivariable regression models at the year, day, and visit level after adjustment for characteristics of the primary care physicians (PCPs), patients, and types of visit and for practice fixed effects.
In 2017, female PCPs generated 10.9% less revenue from office visits than their male counterparts (-$39,143.2; 95% confidence interval CI, -53,523.0 to -24,763.4) and conducted 10.8% fewer visits (-330.5 visits; 95% CI, -406.6 to -254.3) over 2.6% fewer clinical days (-5.3 days; 95% CI, -7.7 to -3.0), after adjustment for age, academic degree, specialty, and number of sessions worked per week, yet spent 2.6% more observed time in visits that year than their male counterparts (1201.3 minutes; 95% CI, 184.7 to 2218.0). Per visit, after adjustment for PCP, patient, and visit characteristics, female PCPs generated equal revenue but spent 15.7% more time with a patient (2.4 minutes; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6). These results were consistent in subgroup analyses according to the gender and health status of the patients and the type and complexity of the visits.
Female PCPs generated less visit revenue than male colleagues in the same practices owing to a lower volume of visits, yet spent more time in direct patient care per visit, per day, and per year. (Funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).
Improving care for people with long-term conditions is central to NHS policy. It has been suggested that the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a primary care pay-for-performance scheme that ...rewards practices for delivering effective interventions in long-term conditions, does not encourage high-quality care for this group of patients.
To examine the evidence that the QOF has improved quality of care for patients with long-term conditions.
This was a systematic review of research on the effectiveness of the QOF in the UK.
The authors searched electronic databases for peer-reviewed empirical quantitative research studying the effect of the QOF on a broad range of processes and outcomes of care, including coordination and integration of care, holistic and personalised care, self-care, patient experience, physiological and biochemical outcomes, health service utilisation, and mortality. Because the studies were heterogeneous, a narrative synthesis was carried out.
The authors identified three systematic reviews and five primary research studies that met the inclusion criteria. The QOF was associated with a modest slowing of both the increase in emergency admissions and the increase in consultations in severe mental illness (SMI), and modest improvements in diabetes care. The nature of the evidence means that the authors cannot be sure that any of these associations is causal. No clear effect on mortality was found. The authors found no evidence that the QOF influences integration or coordination of care, holistic care, self-care, or patient experience.
The NHS should consider more broadly what constitutes high-quality primary care for people with long-term conditions, and consider other ways of motivating primary care to deliver it.
Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these ...new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context.
The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence.
One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users.
Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand.
Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .
The aim of this study is to estimate the immediate and lasting effects of the 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak on public-sector primary healthcare delivery in Liberia using 7 years of ...comprehensive routine health information system data.
We analyzed 10 key primary healthcare indicators before, during, and after the EVD outbreak using 31,836 facility-month service outputs from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 across a census of 379 public-sector health facilities in Liberia (excluding Montserrado County). All indicators had statistically significant decreases during the first 4 months of the EVD outbreak, with all indicators having their lowest raw mean outputs in August 2014. Decreases in outputs comparing the end of the initial EVD period (September 2014) to May 2014 (pre-EVD) ranged in magnitude from a 67.3% decrease in measles vaccinations (95% CI: -77.9%, -56.8%, p < 0.001) and a 61.4% decrease in artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) treatments for malaria (95% CI: -69.0%, -53.8%, p < 0.001) to a 35.2% decrease in first antenatal care (ANC) visits (95% CI: -45.8%, -24.7%, p < 0.001) and a 38.5% decrease in medroxyprogesterone acetate doses (95% CI: -47.6%, -29.5%, p < 0.001). Following the nadir of system outputs in August 2014, all indicators showed statistically significant increases from October 2014 to December 2014. All indicators had significant positive trends during the post-EVD period, with every system output exceeding pre-Ebola forecasted trends for 3 consecutive months by November 2016. Health system outputs lost during and after the EVD outbreak were large and sustained for most indicators. Prior to exceeding pre-EVD forecasted trends for 3 months, we estimate statistically significant cumulative losses of -776,110 clinic visits (95% CI: -1,480,896, -101,357, p = 0.030); -24,449 bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccinations (95% CI: -45,947, -2,020, p = 0.032); -9,129 measles vaccinations (95% CI: -12,312, -5,659, p < 0.001); -17,191 postnatal care (PNC) visits within 6 weeks of birth (95% CI: -28,344, -5,775, p = 0.002); and -101,857 ACT malaria treatments (95% CI: -205,839, -2,139, p = 0.044) due to the EVD outbreak. Other outputs showed statistically significant cumulative losses only through December 2014, including losses of -12,941 first pentavalent vaccinations (95% CI: -20,309, -5,527, p = 0.002); -5,122 institutional births (95% CI: -8,767, -1,234, p = 0.003); and -45,024 acute respiratory infections treated (95% CI: -66,185, -24,019, p < 0.001). Compared to pre-EVD forecasted trends, medroxyprogesterone acetate doses and first ANC visits did not show statistically significant net losses. ACT treatment for malaria was the only indicator with an estimated net increase in system outputs through December 2016, showing an excess of +78,583 outputs (95% CI: -309,417, +450,661, p = 0.634) compared to pre-EVD forecasted trends, although this increase was not statistically significant. However, comparing December 2013 to December 2017, ACT malaria cases have increased 49.2% (95% CI: 33.9%, 64.5%, p < 0.001). Compared to pre-EVD forecasted trends, there remains a statistically significant loss of -15,144 PNC visits within 6 weeks (95% CI: -29,453, -787, p = 0.040) through December 2016.
The Liberian public-sector primary healthcare system has made strides towards recovery from the 2014-2015 EVD outbreak. All primary healthcare indicators tracked have recovered to pre-EVD levels as of November 2016. Yet, for most indicators, it took more than 1 year to recover to pre-EVD levels. During this time, large losses of essential primary healthcare services occurred compared to what would have been expected had the EVD outbreak not occurred. The disruption of malaria case management during the EVD outbreak may have resulted in increased malaria cases. Large and sustained investments in public-sector primary care health system strengthening are urgently needed for EVD-affected countries.
PDF
