Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study
National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical care research and review 2022-06, Vol.79 (3), p.394-403 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 403 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 394 |
| container_title | Medical care research and review |
| container_volume | 79 |
| creator | Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil Rose, Tanith C. Gabbay, Mark Buckels, Laura Morris, Colette Poll, Sharon Goodall, Mark Barnett, Rob Barr, Ben |
| description | National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/10775587211035280 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9052704</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_10775587211035280</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2571052317</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-15da58d80eb1934b83a68f7a307f6a68c2950e57699d2a3db1a473438679afd93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVpyFfzA3opgl56caKRrA_3UAibbRtYSCHJWcza410Hr51K9kL-fWU2TZqUnDTifeaddxjGPoI4BbD2DIS1WjsrAYTS0ol37BC0lplxAt6nOunZBBywoxjvhBC5dGqfHahcSQW5OmTr-RbbEYemW_FhTXxe11QOzZY6ipH3NUe-6Ets-a_QbDA88BkG4pddSd1E8etyTRv6ys_5RZNaAyUla7rs-Rf59TBWDx_YXo1tpJPH95jdfp_fzH5mi6sfl7PzRVbmxgwZ6Aq1q5ygJRQqXzqFxtUWlbC1SWUpCy1IW1MUlURVLQFzm9ZxxhZYV4U6Zt92vvfjckPVlDNg6-938X2PjX-pdM3ar_qtL4SWVuTJ4MujQeh_jxQHv2liSW2LHfVj9FJbSKgCm9DPr9C7fgxdWs9Lo40BnespEeyoMvQxBqqfwoDw0x39f3dMPZ_-3eKp4-_hEnC6AyKu6Hns245_ANMvpMA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2656615459</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil ; Rose, Tanith C. ; Gabbay, Mark ; Buckels, Laura ; Morris, Colette ; Poll, Sharon ; Goodall, Mark ; Barnett, Rob ; Barr, Ben</creator><creatorcontrib>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil ; Rose, Tanith C. ; Gabbay, Mark ; Buckels, Laura ; Morris, Colette ; Poll, Sharon ; Goodall, Mark ; Barnett, Rob ; Barr, Ben</creatorcontrib><description>National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1077-5587</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-6801</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/10775587211035280</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34323143</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Cities ; Confidence intervals ; Disadvantaged ; Emergency admissions ; Emergency medical services ; Empirical Research ; England ; General practice ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Inequality ; Intervention ; Motivation ; Patient admissions ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care ; Quality control ; Quality Improvement ; Quality management</subject><ispartof>Medical care research and review, 2022-06, Vol.79 (3), p.394-403</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021 2021 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-15da58d80eb1934b83a68f7a307f6a68c2950e57699d2a3db1a473438679afd93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-15da58d80eb1934b83a68f7a307f6a68c2950e57699d2a3db1a473438679afd93</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5338-0359</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10775587211035280$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10775587211035280$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,21798,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34323143$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rose, Tanith C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabbay, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buckels, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Colette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poll, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodall, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnett, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barr, Ben</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study</title><title>Medical care research and review</title><addtitle>Med Care Res Rev</addtitle><description>National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.</description><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Disadvantaged</subject><subject>Emergency admissions</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Empirical Research</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>General practice</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inequality</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Patient admissions</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><issn>1077-5587</issn><issn>1552-6801</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVpyFfzA3opgl56caKRrA_3UAibbRtYSCHJWcza410Hr51K9kL-fWU2TZqUnDTifeaddxjGPoI4BbD2DIS1WjsrAYTS0ol37BC0lplxAt6nOunZBBywoxjvhBC5dGqfHahcSQW5OmTr-RbbEYemW_FhTXxe11QOzZY6ipH3NUe-6Ets-a_QbDA88BkG4pddSd1E8etyTRv6ys_5RZNaAyUla7rs-Rf59TBWDx_YXo1tpJPH95jdfp_fzH5mi6sfl7PzRVbmxgwZ6Aq1q5ygJRQqXzqFxtUWlbC1SWUpCy1IW1MUlURVLQFzm9ZxxhZYV4U6Zt92vvfjckPVlDNg6-938X2PjX-pdM3ar_qtL4SWVuTJ4MujQeh_jxQHv2liSW2LHfVj9FJbSKgCm9DPr9C7fgxdWs9Lo40BnespEeyoMvQxBqqfwoDw0x39f3dMPZ_-3eKp4-_hEnC6AyKu6Hns245_ANMvpMA</recordid><startdate>20220601</startdate><enddate>20220601</enddate><creator>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil</creator><creator>Rose, Tanith C.</creator><creator>Gabbay, Mark</creator><creator>Buckels, Laura</creator><creator>Morris, Colette</creator><creator>Poll, Sharon</creator><creator>Goodall, Mark</creator><creator>Barnett, Rob</creator><creator>Barr, Ben</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5338-0359</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220601</creationdate><title>Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study</title><author>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil ; Rose, Tanith C. ; Gabbay, Mark ; Buckels, Laura ; Morris, Colette ; Poll, Sharon ; Goodall, Mark ; Barnett, Rob ; Barr, Ben</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-15da58d80eb1934b83a68f7a307f6a68c2950e57699d2a3db1a473438679afd93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Disadvantaged</topic><topic>Emergency admissions</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Empirical Research</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>General practice</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inequality</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Patient admissions</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rose, Tanith C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabbay, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buckels, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Colette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poll, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodall, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnett, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barr, Ben</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medical care research and review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khedmati Morasae, Esmaeil</au><au>Rose, Tanith C.</au><au>Gabbay, Mark</au><au>Buckels, Laura</au><au>Morris, Colette</au><au>Poll, Sharon</au><au>Goodall, Mark</au><au>Barnett, Rob</au><au>Barr, Ben</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study</atitle><jtitle>Medical care research and review</jtitle><addtitle>Med Care Res Rev</addtitle><date>2022-06-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>79</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>394</spage><epage>403</epage><pages>394-403</pages><issn>1077-5587</issn><eissn>1552-6801</eissn><abstract>National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>34323143</pmid><doi>10.1177/10775587211035280</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5338-0359</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1077-5587 |
| ispartof | Medical care research and review, 2022-06, Vol.79 (3), p.394-403 |
| issn | 1077-5587 1552-6801 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9052704 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Cities Confidence intervals Disadvantaged Emergency admissions Emergency medical services Empirical Research England General practice Hospitalization Humans Inequality Intervention Motivation Patient admissions Primary care Primary Health Care Quality control Quality Improvement Quality management |
| title | Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T04%3A22%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20a%20Local%20Primary%20Care%20Incentive%20Scheme:%20A%20Difference-in-Differences%20Study&rft.jtitle=Medical%20care%20research%20and%20review&rft.au=Khedmati%20Morasae,%20Esmaeil&rft.date=2022-06-01&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=394&rft.epage=403&rft.pages=394-403&rft.issn=1077-5587&rft.eissn=1552-6801&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/10775587211035280&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2571052317%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2656615459&rft_id=info:pmid/34323143&rft_sage_id=10.1177_10775587211035280&rfr_iscdi=true |