ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2009
Do the Quality and Outcomes Framework patient experience indicators reward practices that offer improved access?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of factors associated with waiting times for GP appointments in Finnish health centres: a QUALICOPC study.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Satisfaction, demand, and opening hours in primary care: an observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) includes indicators for patient experience, but there has been little research on whether the indicators identify practices that deliver good patient access.
aimTo determine whether practices that achieved high QOF patient experience points in 2005/2006 or 2006/2007 also delivered good patient access. DESIGN OF STUDY: Use of publicly available data to investigate two hypotheses: practices with more positive access survey findings in 2006/2007 will be more likely to have achieved maximum QOF patient experience points in the same year; and practices with maximum QOF patient experience points in 2005/2006 will have higher access survey findings in 2006/2007.
settingTwo-hundred and twenty-four East Midlands general practices.
methodFor hypothesis one, binary logistic regression was used, with achievement of maximum QOF points as the dependent variable, and access survey findings, responder variables, and practice variables as independent variables. For hypothesis two, general linear models were used, with access survey findings as the independent variables, and achievement of maximum QOF points and the responder and practice variables as dependent variables.
resultsThe findings did not support the first hypothesis. For the second hypothesis, achievement of maximum QOF points was only significantly associated with patient satisfaction with opening hours (positive correlation). QOF points were not associated with any other aspect of access.
conclusionThe QOF patient experience indicators do not reward practices that offer good patient access. A standard patient survey with financial incentive may be more effective in identifying and rewarding practices that offer better access, including opportunity to book appointments with a particular doctor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.