English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Financial incentives in the UK such as the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) reward GP surgeries for achievement of nationally defined targets. These have shown mixed results, with weak evidence for some measures, but also possible unintended negative effects.    Aim  To look at the effects of a local intervention for atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension, with surgeries rewarded financially for work, including appointing designated practice leads, attendance at peer review workshops, and producing their own protocols.    Design and setting  A controlled before–after study comparing surgery performance measures in UK primary care.    Method  This study used published QOF data to analyse changes from baseline in mean scores per surgery relating to AF and hypertension prevalence and management at T1 (12 months) and T2 (24 months) for the intervention group, which consisted of all 58 surgeries in East Lancashire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), compared to the control group, which consisted of all other surgeries in north-west England.    Results  There was a small acceleration between T0 (baseline) and T2 in recorded prevalence of hypertension in the intervention group compared to the controls, difference 0.29% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05 to 0.53),  P  = 0.017, but AF prevalence did not increase more in the intervention group. Improvement in quality of management of AF was significantly better in the intervention group, difference 3.24% (95% CI = 1.37 to 5.12),  P  = 0.001.    Conclusion  This intervention improved diagnosis rates of hypertension but not AF, though it did improve quality of AF management. It indicates that funded time to develop quality-improvement measures targeted at a local population and involving peer support can engage staff and have the potential to improve quality.

GP incentives to design hypertension and atrial fibrillation local quality-improvement schemes: a controlled before–after study in UK primary care