Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21385803›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Quality of chronic disease care for older people in care homes and the community in a primary care pay for performance system: retrospective study.

Sunil M Shah, Iain M Carey, Tess Harris, Stephen Dewilde, Derek G Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Design and effects of outcome-based payment models in healthcare: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sunil M ShahDivision of Population Health Sciences and Education, St George's, University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK. sushah@sgul.ac.uk
Iain M Carey
Tess Harris
Stephen Dewilde
Derek G Cook

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the quality of care for chronic diseases among older people in care homes (nursing and residential) compared with the community in a pay for performance system.

designRetrospective analysis of The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a large primary care database.

setting326 English and Welsh general practices, 2008-9.

participants10,387 residents of care homes and 403,259 residents in the community aged 65 to 104 and registered for 90 or more days with their general practitioner.

main outcome measure16 process quality indicators for chronic disease management appropriate for vulnerable older people for conditions included in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework.

resultsAfter adjustment for age, sex, dementia, and length of registration, attainment of quality indicators was significantly lower for residents of care homes than for those in the community for 14 of 16 indicators. The largest differences were for prescribing in heart disease (β blockers in coronary heart disease, relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.75) and monitoring of diabetes (retinal screening, 0.75, 0.71 to 0.80). Monitoring hypothyroidism (0.93, 0.90 to 0.95), blood pressure in people with stroke (0.92, 0.90 to 0.95), and electrolytes for those receiving loop diuretics (0.89, 0.87 to 0.92) showed smaller differences. Attainment was lower in nursing homes than in residential homes. Residents of care homes were more likely to be identified by their doctor as unsuitable or non-consenting for all Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators for a condition allowing their exclusion from targets; 33.7% for stroke and 34.5% for diabetes.

conclusionThere is scope for improving the management of chronic diseases in care homes, but high attainment of some indicators shows that pay for performance systems do not invariably disadvantage residents of care homes compared with those living in the community. High use of exception reporting may compromise care for vulnerable patient groups. The Quality and Outcomes Framework, and other pay for performance systems, should monitor attainment and exception reporting in vulnerable populations such as residents of care homes and consider measures that deal with the specific needs of older people.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseEnglandFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHomes for the AgedHumansMaleNursing HomesPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveRetrospective StudiesWales

Identifiers

PMID21385803
PMCPMC3050988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.