Literature DB >> 16848964

Does a higher 'quality points' score mean better care in stroke? An audit of general practice medical records.

Peter Huw Williams1, Simon de Lusignan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) have produced guidelines for stroke management in primary care; this guidance is taken to be the gold standard for the care of people with stroke. UK general practitioners now have a quality-based contract which includes a Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). This consists of financially remunerated 'quality points' for specific disease areas, including stroke. Achievement of these quality points is measured by extracting a limited list of computer codes from practice computer systems.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a high stroke quality score is associated with adherence to RCP guidelines.
DESIGN: Examination of computer and written medical records of all patients with a diagnosis of stroke.
SETTING: Two general practices, one in southwest London, one in Surrey, with a combined practice population of over 20 000. Both practices had a similar age-sex profile and prevalence of stroke.
RESULTS: One practice scored 93.5% (29/31) of the available stroke quality points. The other practice achieved 73.4% (22.75/31), and only did better in one stroke quality target. However, the practice scoring fewer quality points had much better adherence to RCP guidance: 96% of patients were assessed in secondary care compared with 79% (P=0.001); 64% of stroke patients were seen the same day, compared with 44%; 56% received rehabilitation compared with 37%.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher quality points did not reflect better adherence to RCP guidance. This audit highlights a gap between relatively simplistic measures of quality in the QOF, dependent on the recording of a narrow range of computer codes, and the actual standard of care being delivered. Research is needed to see whether this finding is generalisable and how the Quality and Outcomes Framework might be better aligned with delivering best practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16848964     DOI: 10.14236/jhi.v14i1.612

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Inform Prim Care        ISSN: 1475-9985


  5 in total

1.  Lost in the global sum? Professional and practice development in primary care after the new general practice contract.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Mark Taubert; Kath Checkland; Jenny Kowlazcuk; Steffi Williams
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Does higher quality primary health care reduce stroke admissions? A national cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Michael Soljak; Amaia Calderon-Larrañaga; Pankaj Sharma; Elizabeth Cecil; Derek Bell; Gerrard Abi-Aad; Azeem Majeed
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme and spirometry: rewarding quality or just quantity? A cross-sectional study in Rotherham, UK.

Authors:  Mark Strong; Gail South; Robin Carlisle
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Combining QOF data with the care bundle approach may provide a more meaningful measure of quality in general practice.

Authors:  Carl de Wet; John McKay; Paul Bowie
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  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
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.