A recent article in Primary Care Diabetes examines the question of whether pay for performance has improved the management of diabetes in the United Kingdom. Over the past decade, the UK government has introduced a number of major policy initiatives to improve the quality of health care. One such initiative was the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a pay for performance programme for general practices launched in April 2004. The QOF aimed to improve the primary care management of common chronic conditions including diabetes. The introduction of QOF has been associated with improvements in the quality indicators for diabetes care included in the framework. However, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of QOF from other quality initiatives as few studies have adjusted for underlying trends in quality. QOF may also have reduced inequalities in diabetes care between affluent and deprived areas. Less is known about the impact of QOF on aspects of diabetes care not included in the framework, including self-management and continuity of care.
As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments for th
Comments