Search

Objective To assess how initial severity of depression affects the benefit derived from low intensity interventions for depression. Design Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 datasets comparing low intensity interventions with usual care. Setting Primary care and community settings. Participants 2470 patients with depression. Interventions Low intensity interventions for depression (such as guided self help by means of written materials and limited professional support, and internet delivered interventions). Main outcome measures Depression outcomes (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), and the effect of initial depression severity on the effects of low intensity interventions. Results Although patients were referred for low intensity interventions, many had moderate to severe depression at baseline. We found a significant interaction between baseline severity and treatment effect (coefficient -0.1 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.002)), suggesting that patients who are more severely depressed at baseline demonstrate larger treatment effects than those who are less severely depressed. However, the magnitude of the interaction (equivalent to an additional drop of around one point on the Beck Depression Inventory for a one standard deviation increase in initial severity) was small and may not be clinically significant. Conclusions The data suggest that patients with more severe depression at baseline show at least as much clinical benefit from low intensity interventions as less severely depressed patients and could usefully be offered these interventions as part of a stepped care model.

Contains fulltext : 96936.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Quality measures should be subjected to a testing protocol before being used in practice using key attributes such as acceptability, feasibility and reliability, as well as identifying issues derived from actual implementation and unintended consequences. We describe the methodologies and results of an indicator testing protocol (ITP) using data from proposed quality indicators for the United Kingdom Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). METHODS: The indicator testing protocol involved a multi-step and methodological process: 1) The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, to test clarity and necessity, 2) data extraction from patients' medical records, to test technical feasibility and reliability, 3) diaries, to test workload, 4) cost-effectiveness modelling, and 5) semi-structured interviews, to test acceptability, implementation issues and unintended consequences. Testing was conducted in a sample of representative family practices in England. These methods were combined into an overall recommendation for each tested indicator. RESULTS: Using an indicator testing protocol as part of piloting was seen as a valuable way of testing potential indicators in 'real world' settings. Pilot 1 (October 2009-March 2010) involved thirteen indicators across six clinical domains and twelve indicators passed the indicator testing protocol. However, the indicator testing protocol identified a number of implementation issues and unintended consequences that can be rectified or removed prior to national roll out. A palliative care indicator is used as an exemplar of the value of piloting using a multiple attribute indicator testing protocol - while technically feasible and reliable, it was unacceptable to practice staff and raised concerns about potentially causing actual patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: This indicator testing protocol is one example of a protocol that may be useful in assessing potential quality indicators when adapted to specific country health care settings and

1 september 2010, Contains fulltext : 89788.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Small general practices are often perceived to provide worse care than larger practices. AIM: To describe the comparative performance of small practices on the UK's pay-for-performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework. DESIGN OF STUDY: Longitudinal analysis (2004-2005 to 2006-2007) of quality scores for 48 clinical activities. SETTING: Family practices in England (n = 7502). METHOD: Comparison of performance of practices by list size, in terms of points scored in the pay-for-performance scheme, reported achievement rates, and population achievement rates (which allow for patients excluded from the scheme). RESULTS: In the first year of the pay-for-performance scheme, the smallest practices (those with fewer than 2000 patients) had the lowest median reported achievement rates, achieving the clinical targets for 83.8% of eligible patients. Performance generally improved for practices of all sizes over time, but the smallest practices improved at the fastest rate, and by year 3 had the highest median reported achievement rates (91.5%). This improvement was not achieved by additional exception reporting. There was more variation in performance among small practices than larger ones: practices with fewer than 3000 patients (20.1% of all practices in year 3), represented 46.7% of the highest-achieving 5% of practices and 45.1% of the lowest-achieving 5% of practices. CONCLUSION: Small practices were represented among both the best and the worst practices in terms of achievement of clinical quality targets. The effect of the pay-for-performance scheme appears to have been to reduce variation in performance, and to reduce the difference between large and small practices.

Contains fulltext : 88301.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 87880.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: Major primary care reforms have been introduced in recent years in the United Kingdom, including financial incentives to improve clinical quality and provide more rapid access to care. Little is known about the impact of these changes on patient experience. We examine patient reports of quality of care between 2003 and 2007, including random samples of patients on practice lists and patients with long-term conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional design study of family practices in which questionnaires were sent to serial samples of patients in 42 representative general practices in England. Questionnaires sent to samples of patients with chronic disease (asthma, angina, and diabetes) and random samples of adult patients (excluding patients who reported any long-term condition) in 2003, 2005, and 2007 addressed issues of access, communication, continuity of care, coordination, nursing care, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in quality of care reported by either group of patients between 2003 and 2007 for communication, nursing care, coordination, and overall satisfaction. Some aspects of access improved significantly for patients with chronic disease, but not for the random samples of patients. Patients in both samples reported seeing their usual physician less often and gave lower satisfaction ratings for continuity of care. Most scores were significantly higher for the chronic illness samples than for the random samples of patients in 2003, even after adjusting for age. CONCLUSIONS: There was a modest improvement in access to care for patients with chronic illness, but all patients now find it somewhat harder to obtain continuity of care. This outcome may be related to the incentives to provide rapid appointments or to the increased number of specialized clinics in primary care. The possibility of unintended effects needs to be considered when introducing pay for performance schemes.

Contains fulltext : 80807.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: A pay-for-performance scheme based on meeting targets for the quality of clinical care was introduced to family practice in England in 2004. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis of the quality of care in 42 representative family practices, with data collected at two time points before implementation of the scheme (1998 and 2003) and at two time points after implementation (2005 and 2007). At each time point, data on the care of patients with asthma, diabetes, or coronary heart disease were extracted from medical records; data on patients' perceptions of access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal aspects of care were collected from questionnaires. The analysis included aspects of care that were and those that were not associated with incentives. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2005, the rate of improvement in the quality of care increased for asthma and diabetes (P<0.001) but not for heart disease. By 2007, the rate of improvement had slowed for all three conditions (P<0.001), and the quality of those aspects of care that were not associated with an incentive had declined for patients with asthma or heart disease. As compared with the period before the pay-for-performance scheme was introduced, the improvement rate after 2005 was unchanged for asthma or diabetes and was reduced for heart disease (P=0.02). No significant changes were seen in patients' reports on access to care or on interpersonal aspects of care. The level of the continuity of care, which had been constant, showed a reduction immediately after the introduction of the pay-for-performance scheme (P<0.001) and then continued at that reduced level. CONCLUSIONS: Against a background of increases in the quality of care before the pay-for-performance scheme was introduced, the scheme accelerated improvements in quality for two of three chronic conditions in the short term. However, once targets were reached, the improvement in the quality of care for patients with these