Cargando…

What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: In the UK, the National Health Service has various incentivisation schemes in place to improve the provision of high-quality care. The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) and other Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes are incentive frameworks that focus on meeting predetermined clinical outcom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahmed, Kanwal, Hashim, Salma, Khankhara, Mariyam, Said, Ilhan, Shandakumar, Amrita Tara, Zaman, Sadia, Veiga, Andre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33574115
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127
_version_ 1783650648080777216
author Ahmed, Kanwal
Hashim, Salma
Khankhara, Mariyam
Said, Ilhan
Shandakumar, Amrita Tara
Zaman, Sadia
Veiga, Andre
author_facet Ahmed, Kanwal
Hashim, Salma
Khankhara, Mariyam
Said, Ilhan
Shandakumar, Amrita Tara
Zaman, Sadia
Veiga, Andre
author_sort Ahmed, Kanwal
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the UK, the National Health Service has various incentivisation schemes in place to improve the provision of high-quality care. The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) and other Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes are incentive frameworks that focus on meeting predetermined clinical outcomes. However, the ability of these schemes to meet their aims is debated. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore current incentive schemes available in general practice in the UK, their impact and effectiveness in improving quality of care and (2) To identify other types of incentives discussed in the literature. METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane, PubMed, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Health Management Information Consortium, Embase and Health Management. Articles were screened according to the selection criteria, evaluated against critical appraisal checklists and categorised into themes. RESULTS: 35 articles were included from an initial search result of 22087. Articles were categorised into the following three overarching themes: financial incentives, non-financial incentives and competition. DISCUSSION: The majority of the literature focused on QOF. Its positive effects included reduced mortality rates, better data recording and improved sociodemographic inequalities. However, limitations involved decreased quality of care in non-incentivised activities, poor patient experiences due to tick-box exercises and increased pressure to meet non-specific targets. Findings surrounding competition were mixed, with limited evidence found on the use of non-financial incentives in primary care. CONCLUSION: Current research looks extensively into financial incentives, however, we propose more research into the effects of intrinsic motivation alongside existing P4P schemes to enhance motivation and improve quality of care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7880106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78801062021-02-24 What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review Ahmed, Kanwal Hashim, Salma Khankhara, Mariyam Said, Ilhan Shandakumar, Amrita Tara Zaman, Sadia Veiga, Andre BMJ Open Qual Systematic Review BACKGROUND: In the UK, the National Health Service has various incentivisation schemes in place to improve the provision of high-quality care. The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) and other Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes are incentive frameworks that focus on meeting predetermined clinical outcomes. However, the ability of these schemes to meet their aims is debated. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore current incentive schemes available in general practice in the UK, their impact and effectiveness in improving quality of care and (2) To identify other types of incentives discussed in the literature. METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane, PubMed, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Health Management Information Consortium, Embase and Health Management. Articles were screened according to the selection criteria, evaluated against critical appraisal checklists and categorised into themes. RESULTS: 35 articles were included from an initial search result of 22087. Articles were categorised into the following three overarching themes: financial incentives, non-financial incentives and competition. DISCUSSION: The majority of the literature focused on QOF. Its positive effects included reduced mortality rates, better data recording and improved sociodemographic inequalities. However, limitations involved decreased quality of care in non-incentivised activities, poor patient experiences due to tick-box exercises and increased pressure to meet non-specific targets. Findings surrounding competition were mixed, with limited evidence found on the use of non-financial incentives in primary care. CONCLUSION: Current research looks extensively into financial incentives, however, we propose more research into the effects of intrinsic motivation alongside existing P4P schemes to enhance motivation and improve quality of care. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7880106/ /pubmed/33574115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Ahmed, Kanwal
Hashim, Salma
Khankhara, Mariyam
Said, Ilhan
Shandakumar, Amrita Tara
Zaman, Sadia
Veiga, Andre
What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
title What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
title_full What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
title_fullStr What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
title_full_unstemmed What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
title_short What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
title_sort what drives general practitioners in the uk to improve the quality of care? a systematic literature review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33574115
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmedkanwal whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview
AT hashimsalma whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview
AT khankharamariyam whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview
AT saidilhan whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview
AT shandakumaramritatara whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview
AT zamansadia whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview
AT veigaandre whatdrivesgeneralpractitionersintheuktoimprovethequalityofcareasystematicliteraturereview