ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2024
Opting out of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and impact on practices' performance.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care within general practice. However their effects on care quality are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of practices opting out of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a financial incentive scheme in UK general practice. Study design: A retrospective before and after study of all practices in Tower Hamlets, east London. Methods: Practices were given an option by local commissioners of opting out of QOF without a financial penalty and instead opting for a locally designed financial incentive scheme that promoted more holistic care. We compared those practices which opted out of QOF to those which continued. We used national, publicly available QOF achievement data from 2016/17 and 2017/18. We undertook a sub-analysis of 16 QOF indicators to better understand the impact of the intervention. Results: Of the 36 practices in Tower Hamlets, 7 decided to continue with QOF and 29 opted out. The intervention resulted in a small but statistically significant reduction in the total QOF achievement scores of practices which opted out of QOF. The sub-analysis of 16 QOF indicators showed statistically significant reductions in most of achievement scores net of exceptions for the practices that opted out. The differences in performance between the two cohorts of practices became smaller when exceptions were included. Conclusions: The removal of QOF financial incentives can result in a reduction in achievement of QOF-related indicators but the size of the effect seems to depend on the QOF exception rates. An alternative incentive scheme that promotes a more holistic approach to care seems to be welcomed by general practices.
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.