Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24468469›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Withdrawing performance indicators: retrospective analysis of general practice performance under UK Quality and Outcomes Framework.

Evangelos Kontopantelis, David Springate, David Reeves, Darren M Ashcroft, Jose M Valderas, Tim Doran

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 58 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The role of the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the care of long-term conditions: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Payment methods for outpatient care facilities.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Financial incentives and information provision for post-pandemic primary care quality recovery: a longitudinal study in Catalonia.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Evangelos KontopantelisNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
David Springate
David Reeves
Darren M Ashcroft
Jose M Valderas
Tim Doran

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-016Department of Health NIHR/CS/010/024Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the effect of withdrawing incentives on recorded quality of care, in the context of the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay for performance scheme.

designRetrospective longitudinal study.

settingData for 644 general practices, from 2004/05 to 2011/12, extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

participantsAll patients registered with any of the practices over the study period-13,772,992 in total.

interventionRemoval of financial incentives for aspects of care for patients with asthma, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and psychosis.

main outcome measuresPerformance on eight clinical quality indicators withdrawn from a national incentive scheme: influenza immunisation (asthma) and lithium treatment monitoring (psychosis), removed in April 2006; blood pressure monitoring (coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke), cholesterol concentration monitoring (coronary heart disease, diabetes), and blood glucose monitoring (diabetes), removed in April 2011. Multilevel mixed effects multiple linear regression models were used to quantify the effect of incentive withdrawal.

resultsMean levels of performance were generally stable after the removal of the incentives, in both the short and long term. For the two indicators removed in April 2006, levels in 2011/12 were very close to 2005/06 levels, although a small but statistically significant drop was estimated for influenza immunisation. For five of the six indicators withdrawn from April 2011, no significant effect on performance was seen following removal and differences between predicted and observed scores were small. Performance on related outcome indicators retained in the scheme (such as blood pressure control) was generally unaffected.

conclusionsFollowing the removal of incentives, levels of performance across a range of clinical activities generally remained stable. This indicates that health benefits from incentive schemes can potentially be increased by periodically replacing existing indicators with new indicators relating to alternative aspects of care. However, all aspects of care investigated remained indirectly or partly incentivised in other indicators, and further work is needed to assess the generalisability of the findings when incentives are fully withdrawn.

Indexed as

General PracticeHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID24468469
PMCPMC3903315

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.