Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25949626›Full record

ArticleLondon journal of primary care2010

Primary care in an era of hospital bed reduction: what can we infer from QOF and PBC?

Kath Checkland, Stephen Harrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in London journal of primary care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kath ChecklandPractising GP and Clinical Senior Lecturer.
Stephen HarrisonProfessor of Social Policy and Associate Director National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messagesThe Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has been efficiently and effectively incorporated into practice routines. One possible negative effect of this has been a move towards a more biomedical form of practice.There has been patchy but real engagement with practice-based commissioning (PBC), with significant moves in some areas towards GPs acting collectively to improve services across the health economy, including engaging in performance management of each others' practice.Together, responses to QOF and PBC suggest that GPs may be willing and able to act both individually and collectively to try to mitigate the negative impacts of future spending reductions. WHY THIS MATTERS TO ME: General practice will be under a great deal of pressure in the next few years. Understanding the impact of past policy changes is essential if we are to ensure that the core values of general practice are maintained.

Indexed as

biomedicalisationengagementpractice-based commissioningQOF

Identifiers

PMID25949626
PMCPMC3960708

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.