Skip to main content

Ethnic Differences in Diabetes Management in Patients With and Without Comorbid Medical Conditions

The Introduction of the Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) in 2004 was a major change in how family practitioners are paid in the United Kingdom. The scheme rewards family practitioners for the achievement of predetermined targets. Diabetes is one of the most important components of QOF and accounts for approximately 15 percent of the QOF clinical domain points (650 points are available in the clinical domain out of he total 1,000 points). Currently half of the points available for diabetes care are directed towards the achievement of intermediate outcome targets such as the control of blood pressure, cholesterol and HbA1c.

Although financial incentives have gained momentum in recent years and are seen as a way to improve quality of care, many commentators raised their concerns regarding the potential negative consequences of using pay for performance to improve the quality of care, such as its impact on care delivered to patients from ethnic minority groups and how this may contribute to ethnic inequalities.

In a paper published recently in the journal Diabetes Care, Riyadh Alshamsan and colleagues examined ethnic disparities in diabetes management among patients with and without comorbid medical conditions after a period of sustained investment in quality improvement in the UK. They found that the presence of ≥2 cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with similar blood pressure control among white and South Asian patients when compared with whites without comorbidity but with worse blood pressure control among black patients. They concluded that despite major reforms to improve quality, disparities in blood pressure management have persisted in the UK, particularly among patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. Consequently, policy makers and clinicians should consider the potential impacts of quality initiatives on groups at high risk of clinical complications and adverse outcomes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

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 fo...
5 comments
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more