Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2007

Open Access 01-12-2007 | Research article

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

Authors: Amy Downing, Gavin Rudge, Yaping Cheng, Yu-Kang Tu, Justin Keen, Mark S Gilthorpe

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Statutory Instrument 291: The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2004: Sch.3. 2004, HMSO: London Statutory Instrument 291: The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2004: Sch.3. 2004, HMSO: London
2.
go back to reference Department of Health: Investing in General Practice; The New General Medical Services Contract. 2003, Department of Health: London Department of Health: Investing in General Practice; The New General Medical Services Contract. 2003, Department of Health: London
3.
go back to reference Department of Health: Updated version of the QOF guidance and evidence base. 2004, Department of Health: London Department of Health: Updated version of the QOF guidance and evidence base. 2004, Department of Health: London
4.
go back to reference Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: The English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Summary (revised). 2005, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: The English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Summary (revised). 2005, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London
5.
go back to reference Leyland AH, Boddy FA: League tables and acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1998, 351: 555-558. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09362-8.CrossRef Leyland AH, Boddy FA: League tables and acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1998, 351: 555-558. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09362-8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rasbash J, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B, Charlton C: MLwiN version 2.02. 2005, Institute of Education: London Rasbash J, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B, Charlton C: MLwiN version 2.02. 2005, Institute of Education: London
7.
go back to reference Robinson WS: Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. Am Sociol Rev. 1950, 15: 351-357. 10.2307/2087176.CrossRef Robinson WS: Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. Am Sociol Rev. 1950, 15: 351-357. 10.2307/2087176.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Arah OA, Westert GP: Correlates of health and healthcare performance: applying the Canadian health indicators framework at the provincial-territorial level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005, 5: 76-10.1186/1472-6963-5-76.CrossRef Arah OA, Westert GP: Correlates of health and healthcare performance: applying the Canadian health indicators framework at the provincial-territorial level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005, 5: 76-10.1186/1472-6963-5-76.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Werner RM, Bradlow ET: Relationship between Medicare's Hospital Compare performance measures and mortality rates. J Am Med Assoc. 2006, 296: 2694-2702. 10.1001/jama.296.22.2694.CrossRef Werner RM, Bradlow ET: Relationship between Medicare's Hospital Compare performance measures and mortality rates. J Am Med Assoc. 2006, 296: 2694-2702. 10.1001/jama.296.22.2694.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Donabedian A: Evaluating the quality of healthcare. Millbank memorial fund quarterly. 1966, 44: 166-203. 10.2307/3348969.CrossRef Donabedian A: Evaluating the quality of healthcare. Millbank memorial fund quarterly. 1966, 44: 166-203. 10.2307/3348969.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mant J: Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001, 13: 475-480. 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475.CrossRef Mant J: Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001, 13: 475-480. 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Brown CA, Lilford RJ: Cross sectional study of performance indicators for English Primary Care Trusts: testing construct validity and identifying explanatory variables. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006, 6: 81-10.1186/1472-6963-6-81.CrossRef Brown CA, Lilford RJ: Cross sectional study of performance indicators for English Primary Care Trusts: testing construct validity and identifying explanatory variables. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006, 6: 81-10.1186/1472-6963-6-81.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Williams PH, de Lusignan S: Does a higher 'quality points' score mean better care in stroke? An audit of general practice medical records. Inform Prim Care. 2006, 14: 29-40.PubMed Williams PH, de Lusignan S: Does a higher 'quality points' score mean better care in stroke? An audit of general practice medical records. Inform Prim Care. 2006, 14: 29-40.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Guthrie B, Inkster M, Fahey T: Tackling therapeutic inertia: role of treatment data in quality indicators. Brit Med J. 2007, 335: 542-544. 10.1136/bmj.39259.400069.AD.CrossRef Guthrie B, Inkster M, Fahey T: Tackling therapeutic inertia: role of treatment data in quality indicators. Brit Med J. 2007, 335: 542-544. 10.1136/bmj.39259.400069.AD.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Hiroeh U, Roland M: Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. New Engl J Med. 2006, 355: 375-384. 10.1056/NEJMsa055505.CrossRef Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Hiroeh U, Roland M: Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. New Engl J Med. 2006, 355: 375-384. 10.1056/NEJMsa055505.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference McLean G, Sutton M, Guthrie B: Deprivation and quality of primary care services: evidence for persistence of the inverse care law from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 2006, 60: 917-922. 10.1136/jech.2005.044628.CrossRef McLean G, Sutton M, Guthrie B: Deprivation and quality of primary care services: evidence for persistence of the inverse care law from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 2006, 60: 917-922. 10.1136/jech.2005.044628.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Amy Downing
Gavin Rudge
Yaping Cheng
Yu-Kang Tu
Justin Keen
Mark S Gilthorpe
Publication date
01-12-2007
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2007
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-166

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

BMC Health Services Research 1/2007 Go to the issue