A qualitative study of primary care clinicians' views of treating childhood obesity

Background: The prevalence of childhood obesity is rising and the UK Government have stated a commitment to addressing obesity in general. One method has been to include indicators relating to obesity within the GP pay-for-performance Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) contract. This study aimed to explore general practitioners' and practice nurses' views in relation to their role in treating childhood obesity. Methods: We interviewed eighteen practitioners (twelve GPs and six nurses) who worked in general practices contracting with Rotherham Primary Care Trust. Interviews were face to face and semi structured. The transcribed data were analysed using framework analysis. Results: GPs and practice nurses felt that their role was to raise the issue of a child's weight, but that ultimately obesity was a social and family problem. Time constraint, lack of training and lack of resources were identified as important barriers to addressing childhood obesity. There was concern that the clinician-patient relationship could be adversely affected by discussing what was often seen as a sensitive topic. GPs and practice nurses felt ill-equipped to tackle childhood obesity given the lack of evidence for effective interventions, and were sceptical that providing diet and exercise advice would have any impact upon a child's weight. Conclusion: GPs and practice nurses felt that their role in obesity management was centred upon raising the issue of a child's weight, and providing basic diet and exercise advice. Clinicians may find it difficult to make a significant impact on childhood obesity while the evidence base for effective management remains poor. Until the lack of effective interventions is addressed, implementing additional targets (for example through the QOF) may not be effective

Primary care and health inequality : Difference-in-difference study comparing England and Ontario

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether equity-oriented primary care investment that seeks to scale up the delivery of effective care in disadvantaged communities can reduce health inequality within high-income settings that have pre-existing universal primary care systems. We provide some non-randomised controlled evidence by comparing health inequality trends between two similar jurisdictions-one of which implemented equity-oriented primary care investment in the mid-to-late 2000s as part of a cross-government strategy for reducing health inequality (England), and one which invested in primary care without any explicit equity objective (Ontario, Canada). METHODS: We analysed whole-population data on 32,482 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 1,500 people) in England, and 18,961 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 700 people) in Ontario. We examined trends in mortality amenable to healthcare by decile groups of neighbourhood deprivation within each jurisdiction. We used linear models to estimate absolute and relative gaps in amenable mortality between most and least deprived groups, considering the gradient between these extremes, and evaluated difference-in-difference comparisons between the two jurisdictions. RESULTS: Inequality trends were comparable in both jurisdictions from 2004-6 but diverged from 2007-11. Compared with Ontario, the absolute gap in amenable mortality in England fell between 2004-6 and 2007-11 by 19.8 per 100,000 population (95% CI: 4.8 to 34.9); and the relative gap in amenable mortality fell by 10 percentage points (95% CI: 1 to 19). The biggest divergence occurred in the most deprived decile group of neighbourhoods. DISCUSSION: In comparison to Ontario, England succeeded in reducing absolute socioeconomic gaps in mortality amenable to healthcare from 2007 to 2011, and preventing them from growing in relative terms. Equity-oriented primary care reform in England in the mid-to-late 2000s may have helped to reduce socioeconomic inequality in health, though other explanations for this divergence are possible and further research is needed on the specific causal mechanisms

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities

Background: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to be higher among people with intellectual disability (ID) than in the general population. However, research on prevalence and prevention in this population is limited. Objectives: The objectives of this programme of work were to establish a programme of research that would significantly enhance the knowledge and understanding of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) and T2DM in people with ID; to test strategies for the early identification of IGR and T2DM in people with ID; and to develop a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in a population with ID and IGR (or at a high risk of T2DM/CVD). Setting: Leicestershire, UK. Participants: Adults with ID were recruited from community settings, including residential homes and family homes. Adults with mild to moderate ID who had an elevated body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 kg/m2 and/or IGR were invited to take part in the education programme. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the screening programme was the prevalence of screen-detected T2DM and IGR. The uptake, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were assessed. Data sources: Participants were recruited from general practices, specialist ID services and clinics, and through direct contact. Results: A total of 930 people with ID were recruited to the screening programme: 58% were male, 80% were white and 68% were overweight or obese. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (standard deviation 14.2 years). Bloods were obtained for 675 participants (73%). The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2DM was 1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5% to 2%] and of IGR was 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%). Abnormal IGR was more common in those of non-white ethnicity; those with a first-degree family history of diabetes; those with increasing weight, waist circumference, BMI, diastolic blood pressure or triglycerides; and those with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We developed a lifestyle educational programme for people with ID, informed by findings from qualitative stakeholder interviews (health-care professionals, n = 14; people with ID, n = 7) and evidence reviews. Subsequently, 11 people with ID (and carers) participated in pilot education sessions (two groups) and five people attended education for the feasibility stage (one group). We found that it was feasible to collect primary outcome measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour using wrist-worn accelerometers. We found that the programme was relatively costly, meaning that large changes in activity or diet (or a reduction in programme costs) would be necessary for the programme to be cost-effective. We also developed a quality development process for assessing intervention fidelity. Limitations: We were able to screen only around 30% of the population and involved only a small number in the piloting and feasibility work. Conclusions: The results from this programme of work have significantly enhanced the existing knowledge and understanding of T2DM and IGR in people with ID. We have developed a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in this population. Future work: Further work is needed to evaluate the STOP Diabetes intervention to identify cost-effective strategies for its implementation

The use of financial incentives to help improve health outcomes: is the quality and outcomes framework fit for purpose? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The quality and outcomes framework (QOF) is one of the world's largest pay-for-performance schemes, rewarding general practitioners for the quality of care they provide. This review examines the evidence on the efficacy of the scheme for improving health outcomes, its impact on non-incentivized activities and the robustness of the clinical targets adopted in the scheme. METHODS: The review was conducted using six electronic databases, six sources of grey literature and bibliography searches from relevant publications. Studies were identified using a comprehensive search strategy based on MeSH terms and keyword searches. A total of 21,543 references were identified of which 32 met the eligibility criteria with 11 studies selected for the review. RESULTS: Findings provide strong evidence that the QOF initially improved health outcomes for a limited number of conditions but subsequently fell to the pre-existing trend. There was limited impact on non-incentivized activities with adverse effects for some sub-population groups. CONCLUSION: The QOF has limited impact on improving health outcomes due to its focus on process-based indicators and the indicators' ceiling thresholds. Further research is required to strengthen the quality of evidence available on the QOF's impact on population health to ensure that the incentive scheme is both clinically and cost-effective

"Mind the gap!" Evaluation of the performance gap attributable to exception reporting and target thresholds in the new GMS contract: National database analysis

Background: The 2003 revision of the UK GMS contract rewards general practices for performance against clinical quality indicators. Practices can exempt patients from treatment, and can receive maximum payment for less than full coverage of eligible patients. This paper aims to estimate the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care (the pay-performance gap), and to estimate how much of the gap is attributable respectively to thresholds and to exception reporting. Methods: Analysis of Quality Outcomes Framework data in the National Primary Care Database and exception reporting data from the Information Centre from 8407 practices in England in 2005 - 6. The main outcome measures were the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care at the practice level, both for individual indicators and a combined composite score. An additional outcome was the percentage of that gap attributable respectively to exception reporting and maximum threshold targets set at less than 100%. Results: The mean pay-performance gap for the 65 aggregated clinical indicators was 13.3% (range 2.9% to 48%). 52% of this gap (6.9% of eligible patients) is attributable to thresholds being set at less than 100%, and 48% to patients being exception reported. The gap was greater than 25% in 9 indicators: beta blockers and cholesterol control in heart disease; cholesterol control in stroke; influenza immunization in asthma; blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol control in diabetes; seizures in epilepsy and treatment of hypertension. Conclusion: Threshold targets and exception reporting introduce an incentive ceiling, which substantially reduces the percentage of eligible patients that UK practices need to treat in order to receive maximum incentive payments for delivering that care. There are good clinical reasons for exception reporting, but after unsuitable patients have been exempted from treatment, there is no reason why all maximum thresholds should not be 100%, whilst retaining the current lower thresholds to provide incentives for lower performing practices

Performance measurements in diabetes care: the complex task of selecting quality indicators

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: /st> To review the literature on the content and development of the sets of quality indicators used in studies on the quality of diabetes care in primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: /st> The MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles published up to January 2011. STUDY SELECTION: and data extraction We included studies on the quality of adult diabetes care, using quality indicators. We excluded studies focusing on the hospital setting, patient subgroups, specific components of diabetes care and specific outcomes. In total, 102 studies (including 102 sets and 1494 indicators) were analyzed by two independent reviewers, using the criteria of the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse and international guidelines to document the content and selection of the identified indicators. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: /st> Sets varied greatly in number, content and definitions of quality indicators. Most of the indicators concerned HbA1C, lipids, blood pressure, eye and foot examination and urinalysis. Few sets included indicators on lifestyle counseling, patient experiences, healthcare structure or access to healthcare providers. Seventy sets did not specify explicit selection criteria, and 19 of these did not report the sources of the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: /st> Sets of quality indicators are diverse in number, content and definitions. This diversity reflects a lack of uniformity in the concept of diabetes care quality and hinders the interpretation of and comparison between quality assessments. METHOD: logy regarding defining constructs such as the quality of diabetes care and indicator selection procedures is available and should be used more rigorously