Dataset Information

Relationship between general practice capitation funding and the quality of primary care in England: a cross-sectional, 3-year study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the relationship between general practice capitation funding and quality ratings based on general practice inspections.

Design

Cross-sectional study pooling 3 years of primary care administrative data.

Setting

UK primary care.

Participants

7310 practices (95% of all practices) in England which underwent Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections between November 2014 and December 2017.

Main outcome measures

CQC ratings. Ordered logistic regression methods were used to predict the relationship between practice capitation funding and CQC ratings in each of five domains of quality: caring, effective, responsive, safe and well led, together with an overall practice rating.

Results

Higher capitation funding per patient was significantly associated with higher CQC ratings across all five quality domains: caring (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23), effective (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16), responsive (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17), safe (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.18), well led (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20) and overall rating (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.19).

Conclusion

Higher capitation funding was consistently associated with higher ratings across all CQC domains and in the overall practice rating. This study suggests that measured dimensions of the quality of care are related to the underlying capitation funding allocated to each general practice, implying that additional capitation funding may be associated with higher levels of primary care quality.

SUBMITTER: L'Esperance V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858150 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relationship between general practice capitation funding and the quality of primary care in England: a cross-sectional, 3-year study.

L'Esperance Veline V Gravelle Hugh H Schofield Peter P Santos Rita R Ashworth Mark M

BMJ open 20191107 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the relationship between general practice capitation funding and quality ratings based on general practice inspections.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional study pooling 3 years of primary care administrative data.<h4>Setting</h4>UK primary care.<h4>Participants</h4>7310 practices (95% of all practices) in England which underwent Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections between November 2014 and December 2017.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>CQC ratings. Ordered logistic reg ...[more]

PMID: 31699726

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesGeneral practice is experiencing a growing crisis with the numbers of doctors who are training and then entering the profession in the UK failing to keep pace with workforce needs. This study investigated the immediate to medium term career intentions of those who are about to become general practitioners (GPs) and the factors that are influencing career plans.DesignOnline questionnaire survey, with quantitative answers analysed using descriptive statistics and free text data analysed using a thematic framework approach.Setting and participantsDoctors approaching the end of 3-year GP vocational training in the West Midlands, England.Results178 (57.2%) doctors completed the survey. Most participants planned to work as salaried GPs or locums rather than entering a general practice partnership for at least the first 5 years post-completion of training; others failed to express a career plan or planned to leave general practice completely or work overseas. Many were interested in developing portfolio careers.The quality of general practice experience across undergraduate, foundation and vocational training were reported as influencing personal career plans, and in particular perceptions about workload pressure and morale within the training practices in which they had been placed. Experience of a poor work-life balance as a trainee had a negative effect on career intentions, as did negative perceptions about how general practice is portrayed by politicians and the media.ConclusionThis study describes a number of potentially modifiable factors related to training programmes that are detrimentally influencing the career plans of newly trained GPs. In addition, there are sociodemographic factors, such as age, gender and having children, which are also influencing career plans and so need to be accommodated. With ever-increasing workload in general practice, there is an urgent need to understand and where possible address these issues at national and local level.

Project description:BackgroundThe source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality.DesignA retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database.ResultsQuality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p≤0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources.ConclusionResearch report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundCancer and dementia are common in older people and management of the conditions as comorbidities can be challenging, yet little is known about the size or characteristics of this group. We aimed to estimate the prevalence, characteristics and general practice resource usage of people living with both conditions in England.MethodsAnonymised electronic healthcare records from 391 National Health Service general practices across England using the TPP SystmOne general practice system were obtained from ResearchOne. Data included demographic and clinical characteristics, and general practice healthcare useage (appointments, prescriptions, referrals and secondary care contacts) for people aged 50 and over with a cancer and/or dementia diagnosis consistent with the Quality and Outcomes Framework between 2005 and 2016. Multi-level negative binomial regression was used to analyse the association between having cancer and/or dementia and the number of general practice appointments.ResultsData from 162,371 people with cancer and/or dementia were analysed; 3616 (2.2%) people were identified as having comorbid cancer and dementia. Of people with cancer, 3.1% also had dementia, rising to 7.5% (1 in 13 people) in those aged 75 and over. Fewer people with both conditions were female (50.7%) compared to those with dementia alone (65.6%) and those with comorbid cancer and dementia were older than those with cancer alone [mean ages 83 (sd = 7), 69 (sd = 12) respectively]. Those with both conditions were less likely to have lung cancer than those with cancer alone (7.5% vs. 10.3%) but more likely to have prostate cancer (20.9% vs. 15.8%). Additional comorbidities were more prevalent for those with both conditions than those with cancer or dementia alone (68.4% vs. 50.2% vs. 54.0%). In the year following the first record of either condition, people with cancer and dementia had 9% more general practice appointments (IRR:1.09, 95% CI:1.01-1.17) than those with cancer alone and 37% more appointments than those with dementia alone (IRR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.28-1.47).ConclusionsA significant number of people are living with comorbid cancer and dementia in England. This group have additional comorbidity and higher general practice usage than those with cancer/dementia alone. The needs of this group should be considered in future general practice care planning and research.

Dataset Information

Relationship between general practice capitation funding and the quality of primary care in England: a cross-sectional, 3-year study.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Relationship between general practice capitation funding and the quality of primary care in England: a cross-sectional, 3-year study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets