Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25908312›Full record

Observational studyJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2015

Performance of new alternative providers of primary care services in England: an observational study.

Felix Greaves, Anthony A Laverty, Utz Pape, Anenta Ratneswaren, Azeem Majeed, Christopher Millett

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Resilience: what is it, why do we need it, and can it help us?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Felix GreavesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK.
Anthony A LavertyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK.
Utz PapeDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK.
Anenta RatneswarenDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK.
Christopher MillettDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP, UK c.millett@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health RP_2014-04-032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth system reforms in England are opening broad areas of clinical practice to new providers of care. As part of these reforms, new entrants--including private companies--have been allowed into the primary care market under 'alternative provider of medical services' contracting mechanisms since 2004. The characteristics and performance of general practices working under new alternative provider contracts are not well described. We sought to compare the quality of care provided by new entrant providers to that provided by the traditional model of general practice.

designOpen cohort study of English general practices. We used linear regression in cross-sectional and time series analyses, adjusting for practice and population characteristics, to compare quality in practices using alternative provider contracts to traditional practices. We created regression models using practice fixed effects to estimate the impact of practices changing to the new contract type.

settingThe English National Health Service.

participantsAll general practices open from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013.

main outcome measuresSeventeen established quality indicators--covering clinical effectiveness, efficiency, access and patient experience.

resultsIn total, 4.1% (347 of 8300) of general practices in England were run by alternative contract providers. These practices tended to be smaller, and serve younger, more diverse and more deprived populations than traditional providers. Practices run by alternative providers performed worse than traditional providers on 15 of 17 indicators after adjusting for practice and population characteristics (p < 0.01 for all). Switching to a new alternative provider contract did not result in improved performance.

conclusionsThe introduction of new alternative providers to deliver primary care services in England has not led to improvements in quality and may have resulted in worse care. Regulators should ensure that new entrants to clinical provider markets are performing to adequate standards and at least as well as traditional providers.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareAgedCohort StudiesContractsCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareEnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Care ReformHealth ServicesHumansMaleNational Health ProgramsPrimary Health CarePrivate Sectorclinical qualityhealth policyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID25908312
PMCPMC4484211

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.