HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McElduff, P Articles by Roland, M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McElduff, P Articles by Roland, M Topic Collections Relevant Article

Will changes in primary care improve health outcomes? Modelling the impact of financial incentives introduced to improve quality of care in the UK

¹ Evidence for Population Health Unit, School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
² Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
³ National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr P McElduff
Evidence for Population Health Unit, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK; patrick.mcelduff{at}man.ac.uk Objectives: To estimate the total health gain from improving the quality of care among patients with cardiovascular disease in line with the quality indicator targets in the new contract for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK.

Design: Statistical modelling, applying population impact measures to estimate cardiovascular health gains from achieving treatment targets in the GP contract, taking into account current levels of treatment and control.

Main outcome measures: Number of events prevented in the population over 5 years applied to a notional general practice population of 10 000.

Results: The greatest health gain in those aged 45–84 years would come from reaching cholesterol reduction targets. This could prevent 15 events in people with coronary heart disease, seven events in those with a history of stroke, and seven events in those with diabetes. Achieving blood pressure control targets in hypertensive patients without the above conditions could prevent 15 cardiovascular events, with further benefits from reducing blood pressure in patients with high blood pressure and coronary heart disease, stroke, or diabetes. Achieving other targets would have smaller impacts because high levels of care are already being achieved or because of the low prevalence of conditions or associated event risk.

Conclusion: It is possible to quantify the health gain to a practice population of achieving quality targets such as those set in the new GP contract. The amount of health gain is sensitive to current quality of care, prevalence of conditions, and risk factors, and to the size of change anticipated. Nevertheless, it appears that significant health gains could result from achieving the proposed quality targets.

Keywords: GP contracts; quality indicators; general practice; quality improvement

Relevant Article

Quality Lines
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 161. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. B. Christianson, S. Leatherman, and K. Sutherland Lessons From Evaluations of Purchaser Pay-for-Performance Programs: A Review of the Evidence Med Care Res Rev, December 1, 2008; 65(6_suppl): 5S - 35S. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Maisey, N. Steel, R. Marsh, S. Gillam, R. Fleetcroft, and A. Howe Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study J Health Serv Res Policy, July 1, 2008; 13(3): 133 - 139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P MacBride-Stewart, R. Elton, and T. Walley Do quality incentives change prescribing patterns in primary care? An observational study in Scotland Fam. Pract., February 2, 2008; (2008) cmm074v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. McLean, B. Guthrie, and M. Sutton Differences in the quality of primary medical care services by remoteness from urban settlements Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2007; 16(6): 446 - 449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Campbell, D. Reeves, E. Kontopantelis, E. Middleton, B. Sibbald, and M. Roland Quality of Primary Care in England with the Introduction of Pay for Performance N. Engl. J. Med., July 12, 2007; 357(2): 181 - 190. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I Gemmell, R F Heller, K Payne, R Edwards, M Roland, and P Durrington Potential population impact of the UK government strategy for reducing the burden of coronary heart disease in England: comparing primary and secondary prevention strategies. Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2006; 15(5): 339 - 343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sutton and G. McLean Determinants of primary medical care quality measured under the new UK contract: cross sectional study BMJ, February 18, 2006; 332(7538): 389 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M Campbell, M. O Roland, E. Middleton, and D. Reeves Improvements in quality of clinical care in English general practice 1998-2003: longitudinal observational study BMJ, November 12, 2005; 331(7525): 1121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Sharan Primary Health Care Journal of Health Management, October 1, 2005; 7(2): 295 - 302. [PDF]

				M L Millenson Pay for performance: the best worst choice Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2004; 13(5): 323 - 324. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Roland Linking Physicians' Pay to the Quality of Care -- A Major Experiment in the United Kingdom N. Engl. J. Med., September 30, 2004; 351(14): 1448 - 1454. [Full Text] [PDF]