Skip to main content

Impact of Pay for Performance on Disparities in Stroke, Hypertension, and Coronary Heart Disease Management


The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a pay for performance programme, was introduced into United Kingdom (UK) primary care as part of a new General Practitioner (GP) contract in April 2004. Before the introduction of QOF, most British family doctors were earning a large proportion of their income from capitation payments. This system rewarded family doctors for having a large list of registered patients rather than for the quality of care that they provided.

There is limited definitive information about the impact of the QOF on level disparities in health care. In a study published in the journal PLoS One, John Lee and colleagues from Imperial College London investigated the following research questions: has QOF resulted in a step change in the quality of care for coronary heart disease, stroke and hypertension in white, black and south Asian patients? Has QOF reduced disparities in the quality of care for these conditions between these ethnic groups? Did general practices with different baseline performance respond differently to this programme?

The findings of this study suggest that the implementation of QOF resulted in significant short term improvements in blood pressure control. The magnitude of benefit varied between ethnic groups with a statistically significant short term reduction in systolic BP in white and black but not in south Asian patients with hypertension. Disparities in risk factor control were attenuated only on few measures and largely remained intact at the end of the study period.

The authors concluded that the QOF should set more challenging but achievable targets for general practitioners. Specific targets aimed at reducing ethnic disparities in health care may also be needed.

Figure: Trends in mean total cholesterol in patients with CHD and stroke.

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