Carwyn Langdown1, Stephen Peckham2. 1. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. 2. Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, George Allen Wing, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK Policy Research Unit in Commissioning and the Healthcare System, University of Manchester and CHSS, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality and outcomes framework (QOF) is one of the world's largest pay-for-performance schemes, rewarding general practitioners for the quality of care they provide. This review examines the evidence on the efficacy of the scheme for improving health outcomes, its impact on non-incentivized activities and the robustness of the clinical targets adopted in the scheme. METHODS: The review was conducted using six electronic databases, six sources of grey literature and bibliography searches from relevant publications. Studies were identified using a comprehensive search strategy based on MeSH terms and keyword searches. A total of 21,543 references were identified of which 32 met the eligibility criteria with 11 studies selected for the review. RESULTS: Findings provide strong evidence that the QOF initially improved health outcomes for a limited number of conditions but subsequently fell to the pre-existing trend. There was limited impact on non-incentivized activities with adverse effects for some sub-population groups. CONCLUSION: The QOF has limited impact on improving health outcomes due to its focus on process-based indicators and the indicators' ceiling thresholds. Further research is required to strengthen the quality of evidence available on the QOF's impact on population health to ensure that the incentive scheme is both clinically and cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: The quality and outcomes framework (QOF) is one of the world's largest pay-for-performance schemes, rewarding general practitioners for the quality of care they provide. This review examines the evidence on the efficacy of the scheme for improving health outcomes, its impact on non-incentivized activities and the robustness of the clinical targets adopted in the scheme. METHODS: The review was conducted using six electronic databases, six sources of grey literature and bibliography searches from relevant publications. Studies were identified using a comprehensive search strategy based on MeSH terms and keyword searches. A total of 21,543 references were identified of which 32 met the eligibility criteria with 11 studies selected for the review. RESULTS: Findings provide strong evidence that the QOF initially improved health outcomes for a limited number of conditions but subsequently fell to the pre-existing trend. There was limited impact on non-incentivized activities with adverse effects for some sub-population groups. CONCLUSION: The QOF has limited impact on improving health outcomes due to its focus on process-based indicators and the indicators' ceiling thresholds. Further research is required to strengthen the quality of evidence available on the QOF's impact on population health to ensure that the incentive scheme is both clinically and cost-effective.
Authors: Carol M Lewis; Marcus M Monroe; Dianna B Roberts; Amy C Hessel; Stephen Y Lai; Randal S Weber Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christina Korownyk; James McCormack; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Christina Korownyk; James McCormack; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Tianyu Liu; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Andrea B Troxel; Aderinola Adejare; Darra D Finnerty; Karen Hoffer; Judy A Shea Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2016-12-05
Authors: Laura H Gunn; Ailsa J McKay; Mariam Molokhia; Jonathan Valabhji; German Molina; Azeem Majeed; Eszter P Vamos Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christopher Gidlow; Naomi Ellis; Jason Randall; Lisa Cowap; Graham Smith; Zafar Iqbal; Jagdish Kumar Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: C Michael Roberts; Gulsen Gungor; Mike Parker; John Craig; James Mountford Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.871