Premium
Exclusion of patients from quality measurement of diabetes care in the UK pay‐for‐performance programme
Author(s) -
Dalton A. R. H.,
Alshamsan R.,
Majeed A.,
Millett C.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
diabetic medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.474
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1464-5491
pISSN - 0742-3071
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03251.x
Subject(s) - medicine , odds ratio , diabetes mellitus , odds , medical record , cross sectional study , confidence interval , demography , logistic regression , endocrinology , pathology , sociology
Diabet. Med. 28, 525–531 (2011) Abstract Background We examined associations between patient and practice characteristics and exclusions from quality indicators for diabetes during the first 3 years of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, a major pay‐for‐performance scheme in the UK. Methods Three cross‐sectional analyses, conducted using data from the electronic medical records of all patients with diabetes registered in 23 general practices in Brent, North West London between 2004/2005 and 2006/2007. Patterns of exclusions were examined for three intermediate outcome indicators. Results Excluded patients were less likely to achieve treatment targets for HbA 1c (2004/2005, 2006/2007), blood pressure (2005/2006, 2006/2007) and cholesterol (2005/2006). Black and South Asian patients were more likely to be excluded from the HbA 1c indicator than White patients [adjusted odds ratio = 1.64 (1.17–2.29) in 2005/2006]. Patients diagnosed with diabetes duration of > 10 years [adjusted odds ratio = 2.01 (1.65–2.45) for HbA 1c in 2006–2007] and those with co‐morbidities (adjusted odds ratio, ≥ 3 co‐morbidities compared with no co‐morbidity for HbA 1c adjusted odds ratio = 1.90 (1.24–2.90) in 2004/2005] were more likely to be excluded. Larger practices excluded more patients from the HbA 1c indicator [adjusted odds ratio, practice ≥ 7000 compared with < 3000, 3.52 (2.35–5.27) in 2005–2006]. More deprived practices consistently excluded more patients from all indicators, whilst in 2007 older patients were excluded to a larger degree [adjusted odds ratio = 2.52 (1.21–5.28) ≥ 75 compared with 18–44 for blood pressure control]. Conclusions Patients excluded from pay‐for‐performance programmes may be less likely to achieve treatment goals and disproportionately come from disadvantaged groups. Permitting physicians to exclude patients from pay‐for‐performance programmes may worsen health disparities.