32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To assess the receipt of effective healthcare interventions in England by adults aged 50 or more with serious health conditions.

          Design National structured survey questionnaire with face to face interviews covering medical panel endorsed quality of care indicators for both publicly and privately provided care.

          Setting Private households across England.

          Participants 8688 participants in the English longitudinal study of ageing, of whom 4417 reported diagnoses of one or more of 13 conditions.

          Main outcome measures Percentage of indicated interventions received by eligible participants for 32 clinical indicators and seven questions on patient centred care, and aggregate scores.

          Results Participants were eligible for 19 082 items of indicated care. Receipt of indicated care varied substantially by condition. The percentage of indicated care received by eligible participants was highest for ischaemic heart disease (83%, 95% confidence interval 80% to 86%), followed by hearing problems (79%, 77% to 81%), pain management (78%, 73% to 83%), diabetes (74%, 72% to 76%), smoking cessation (74%, 71% to 76%), hypertension (72%, 69% to 76%), stroke (65%, 54% to 76%), depression (64%, 57% to 70%), patient centred care (58%, 57% to 60%), poor vision (58%, 54% to 63%), osteoporosis (53%, 49% to 57%), urinary incontinence (51%, 47% to 54%), falls management (44%, 37% to 51%), osteoarthritis (29%, 26% to 32%), and overall (62%, 62% to 63%). Substantially more indicated care was received for general medical (74%, 73% to 76%) than for geriatric conditions (57%, 55% to 58%), and for conditions included in the general practice pay for performance contract (75%, 73% to 76%) than excluded from it (58%, 56% to 59%).

          Conclusions Shortfalls in receipt of basic recommended care by adults aged 50 or more with common health conditions in England were most noticeable in areas associated with disability and frailty, but few areas were exempt. Efforts to improve care have substantial scope to achieve better health outcomes and particularly need to include chronic conditions that affect quality of life of older people.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom.

          In 2004, after a series of national initiatives associated with marked improvements in the quality of care, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom introduced a pay-for-performance contract for family practitioners. This contract increases existing income according to performance with respect to 146 quality indicators covering clinical care for 10 chronic diseases, organization of care, and patient experience. We analyzed data extracted automatically from clinical computing systems for 8105 family practices in England in the first year of the pay-for-performance program (April 2004 through March 2005), data from the U.K. Census, and data on characteristics of individual family practices. We examined the proportion of patients deemed eligible for a clinical quality indicator for whom the indicator was met (reported achievement) and the proportion of the total number of patients with a medical condition for whom a quality indicator was met (population achievement), and we used multiple regression analysis to determine the extent to which practices achieved high scores by classifying patients as ineligible for quality indicators (exception reporting). The median reported achievement in the first year of the new contract was 83.4 percent (interquartile range, 78.2 to 87.0 percent). Sociodemographic characteristics of the patients (age and socioeconomic features) and practices (size of practice, number of patients per practitioner, age of practitioner, and whether the practitioner was medically educated in the United Kingdom) had moderate but significant effects on performance. Exception reporting by practices was not extensive (median rate, 6 percent), but it was the strongest predictor of achievement: a 1 percent increase in the rate of exception reporting was associated with a 0.31 percent increase in reported achievement. Exception reporting was high in a small number of practices: 1 percent of practices excluded more than 15 percent of patients. English family practices attained high levels of achievement in the first year of the new pay-for-performance contract. A small number of practices appear to have achieved high scores by excluding large numbers of patients by exception reporting. More research is needed to determine whether these practices are excluding patients for sound clinical reasons or in order to increase income. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Geriatric care management for low-income seniors: a randomized controlled trial.

            Low-income seniors frequently have multiple chronic medical conditions for which they often fail to receive the recommended standard of care. To test the effectiveness of a geriatric care management model on improving the quality of care for low-income seniors in primary care. Controlled clinical trial of 951 adults 65 years or older with an annual income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, whose primary care physicians were randomized from January 2002 through August 2004 to participate in the intervention (474 patients) or usual care (477 patients) in community-based health centers. Patients received 2 years of home-based care management by a nurse practitioner and social worker who collaborated with the primary care physician and a geriatrics interdisciplinary team and were guided by 12 care protocols for common geriatric conditions. The Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short-Form (SF-36) scales and summary measures; instrumental and basic activities of daily living (ADLs); and emergency department (ED) visits not resulting in hospitalization and hospitalizations. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant improvements for intervention patients compared with usual care at 24 months in 4 of 8 SF-36 scales: general health (0.2 vs -2.3, P = .045), vitality (2.6 vs -2.6, P < .001), social functioning (3.0 vs -2.3, P = .008), and mental health (3.6 vs -0.3, P = .001); and in the Mental Component Summary (2.1 vs -0.3, P < .001). No group differences were found for ADLs or death. The cumulative 2-year ED visit rate per 1000 was lower in the intervention group (1445 [n = 474] vs 1748 [n = 477], P = .03) but hospital admission rates per 1000 were not significantly different between groups (700 [n = 474] vs 740 [n = 477], P = .66). In a predefined group at high risk of hospitalization (comprising 112 intervention and 114 usual-care patients), ED visit and hospital admission rates were lower for intervention patients in the second year (848 [n = 106] vs 1314 [n = 105]; P = .03 and 396 [n = 106] vs 705 [n = 105]; P = .03, respectively). Integrated and home-based geriatric care management resulted in improved quality of care and reduced acute care utilization among a high-risk group. Improvements in health-related quality of life were mixed and physical function outcomes did not differ between groups. Future studies are needed to determine whether more specific targeting will improve the program's effectiveness and whether reductions in acute care utilization will offset program costs. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182962.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care.

              In the mid-1990s, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system initiated a systemwide reengineering to, among other things, improve its quality of care. We sought to determine the subsequent change in the quality of health care and to compare the quality with that of the Medicare fee-for-service program. Using data from an ongoing performance-evaluation program in the VA, we evaluated the quality of preventive, acute, and chronic care. We assessed the change in quality-of-care indicators from 1994 (before reengineering) through 2000 and compared the quality of care with that afforded by the Medicare fee-for-service system, using the same indicators of quality. In fiscal year 2000, throughout the VA system, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care was 90 percent or greater for 9 of 17 quality-of-care indicators and exceeded 70 percent for 13 of 17 indicators. There were statistically significant improvements in quality from 1994-1995 through 2000 for all nine indicators that were collected in all years. As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly better on all 11 similar quality indicators for the period from 1997 through 1999. In 2000, the VA outperformed Medicare on 12 of 13 indicators. The quality of care in the VA health care system substantially improved after the implementation of a systemwide reengineering and, during the period from 1997 through 2000, was significantly better than that in the Medicare fee-for-service program. These data suggest that the quality-improvement initiatives adopted by the VA in the mid-1990s were effective. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: senior lecturer in primary care
                Role: professor of health services research
                Role: research associate
                Role: director, southern California evidence based practice center
                Role: senior lecturer and English longitudinal study of ageing team
                Role: professor
                Role: professor of epidemiology and public health
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2008
                2008
                13 August 2008
                : 337
                : a957
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ
                [2 ]RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
                [3 ]Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London
                [4 ]Peninsula Medical School, Exeter
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: N Steel n.steel@ 123456uea.ac.uk
                Article
                sten516765
                10.1136/bmj.a957
                2515887
                18703659
                0edb6145-a1bb-4be5-a78e-43d1c3a57574
                © Steel et al 2008

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 May 2008
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article