M Ashworth1, S Golding, A Majeed. 1. GKT Department of General Practice and Primary Care, King's College London, Lambeth Walk, London, UK. mark.ashworth@gp-g85053.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prescribing incentive schemes used by primary care groups (PCGs); to determine the prescribing indicators used under these schemes; and to assess whether the schemes were seeking to improve the quality of prescribing as well as controlling prescribing costs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A total of 145 PCGs in the London and South-East NHS regions. PARTICIPANTS: Prescribing advisers in each PCG. METHODS: Descriptions of the prescribing indicators monitored by each PCG were obtained from a questionnaire survey of PCGs at the end of the 1999-2000 financial year. Financial information on prescribing and details about the implementation of prescribing incentive schemes for this period became available 6 months later and were obtained by a further questionnaire, follow-up telephone and E-mail surveys. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescribing indicators, prescribing budgets and spend. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one out of 145 (83%) PCGs replied to the questionnaires about prescribing indicators and 129 out of 145 (89%) replied with details about their prescribing costs. The most frequently monitored prescribing indicator was generic prescribing, used by 106 out of 121 (88%) PCGs. The most frequently used clinical areas for prescribing indicators were antibiotics (76% of PCGs), gastro-intestinal prescribing (68%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (37%) and cardiovascular prescribing (32%). Seventy-six (63%) schemes also used non-prescribing analysis & cost (PACT) based data for their incentive schemes such as information from prescribing audits and reviews of repeat prescribing protocols. Only 33 (23%) had reached agreement with their practices enabling all prescribing indicator information to be disseminated on a named basis to allow practices to examine each others' prescribing data. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing incentive schemes usually include targets for improvements in prescribing quality as well as cost. PACT-based data were used for cost control and quality improvement but non-PACT data were almost entirely used to promote prescribing quality improvements. The validity of non-PACT data was questioned as was the choice of some indicators that appeared to have been selected without full consideration of current expert opinion. Further work is needed on which indicators are most likely to act as catalysts to prescribing change.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prescribing incentive schemes used by primary care groups (PCGs); to determine the prescribing indicators used under these schemes; and to assess whether the schemes were seeking to improve the quality of prescribing as well as controlling prescribing costs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A total of 145 PCGs in the London and South-East NHS regions. PARTICIPANTS: Prescribing advisers in each PCG. METHODS: Descriptions of the prescribing indicators monitored by each PCG were obtained from a questionnaire survey of PCGs at the end of the 1999-2000 financial year. Financial information on prescribing and details about the implementation of prescribing incentive schemes for this period became available 6 months later and were obtained by a further questionnaire, follow-up telephone and E-mail surveys. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescribing indicators, prescribing budgets and spend. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one out of 145 (83%) PCGs replied to the questionnaires about prescribing indicators and 129 out of 145 (89%) replied with details about their prescribing costs. The most frequently monitored prescribing indicator was generic prescribing, used by 106 out of 121 (88%) PCGs. The most frequently used clinical areas for prescribing indicators were antibiotics (76% of PCGs), gastro-intestinal prescribing (68%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (37%) and cardiovascular prescribing (32%). Seventy-six (63%) schemes also used non-prescribing analysis & cost (PACT) based data for their incentive schemes such as information from prescribing audits and reviews of repeat prescribing protocols. Only 33 (23%) had reached agreement with their practices enabling all prescribing indicator information to be disseminated on a named basis to allow practices to examine each others' prescribing data. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing incentive schemes usually include targets for improvements in prescribing quality as well as cost. PACT-based data were used for cost control and quality improvement but non-PACT data were almost entirely used to promote prescribing quality improvements. The validity of non-PACT data was questioned as was the choice of some indicators that appeared to have been selected without full consideration of current expert opinion. Further work is needed on which indicators are most likely to act as catalysts to prescribing change.