'Just another incentive scheme': a qualitative interview study of a local pay-for-performance scheme for primary care.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100967792 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-2296 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14712296 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Fam Pract Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2000-2021]

Attitude of Health Personnel* ; Physicians, Primary Care*; Primary Health Care/*economics ; Reimbursement, Incentive/*economics ; State Medicine/*economics; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Poverty ; Practice Management, Medical ; Primary Care Nursing/economics ; Qualitative Research ; Quality Indicators, Health Care ; Retrospective Studies ; United Kingdom

Background: A range of policy initiatives have addressed inequalities in healthcare and health outcomes. Local pay-for-performance schemes for primary care have been advocated as means of enhancing clinical ownership of the quality agenda and better targeting local need compared with national schemes such as the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). We investigated whether professionals' experience of a local scheme in one English National Health Service (NHS) former primary care trust (PCT) differed from that of the national QOF in relation to the goal of reducing inequalities.
Methods: We conducted retrospective semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals implementing the scheme and those involved in its development. We purposively sampled practices with varying levels of population socio-economic deprivation and achievement. Interviews explored perceptions of the scheme and indicators, likely mechanisms of influence on practice, perceived benefits and harms, and how future schemes could be improved. We used a framework approach to analysis.
Results: Thirty-eight professionals from 16 general practices and six professionals involved in developing local indicators participated. Our findings cover four themes: ownership, credibility of the indicators, influences on behaviour, and exacerbated tensions. We found little evidence that the scheme engendered any distinctive sense of ownership or experiences different from the national scheme. Although the indicators and their evidence base were seldom actively questioned, doubts were expressed about their focus on health promotion given that eventual benefits relied upon patient action and availability of local resources. Whilst practices serving more affluent populations reported status and patient benefit as motivators for participating in the scheme, those serving more deprived populations highlighted financial reward. The scheme exacerbated tensions between patient and professional consultation agendas, general practitioners benefitting directly from incentives and nurses who did much of the work, and practices serving more and less affluent populations which faced different challenges in achieving targets.
Conclusions: The contentious nature of pay-for-performance was not necessarily reduced by local adaptation. Those developing future schemes should consider differential rewards and supportive resources for practices serving more deprived populations, and employing a wider range of levers to promote professional understanding and ownership of indicators.

BMC Fam Pract. 2015 May 14;16:61. (PMID: 25971774)
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 May;62(598):e322-8. (PMID: 22546591)
BMJ. 1997 Aug 16;315(7105):418-21. (PMID: 9277610)
N Engl J Med. 1983 Jan 13;308(2):97-100. (PMID: 6847940)
J Adv Nurs. 1996 Jul;24(1):185-95. (PMID: 8807395)
Med Care Res Rev. 2006 Feb;63(1 Suppl):73S-95S. (PMID: 16688925)
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 23;361(4):368-78. (PMID: 19625717)
Med Care Res Rev. 2004 Sep;61(3 Suppl):37S-68S. (PMID: 15375283)
Med Care Rev. 1994 Winter;51(4):381-428. (PMID: 10139532)
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Jun;63(611):e408-15. (PMID: 23735412)
Lancet. 2012 Jul 7;380(9836):37-43. (PMID: 22579043)
Ann Fam Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;10(5):461-8. (PMID: 22966110)
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 30;351(14):1448-54. (PMID: 15459308)
Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Jul;30(5):788-803. (PMID: 18444956)
BMJ. 2012 Aug 13;345:e5047. (PMID: 22893568)
Br J Gen Pract. 2008 Oct;58(555):711-9. (PMID: 18826783)
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Oct;18(2 Suppl):38-49. (PMID: 24121835)
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655. (PMID: 18824488)
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Jul 21;14:103. (PMID: 23870537)
Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):281-315. (PMID: 11439467)
Prev Med. 1987 Jan;16(1):119-30. (PMID: 3823010)
Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50. (PMID: 22651257)
BMJ. 2008 Aug 13;337:a957. (PMID: 18703659)
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Jul;13(3):133-9. (PMID: 18573761)
Br J Gen Pract. 1994 May;44(382):224-8. (PMID: 8204337)
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001 Jul;6(3):145-50. (PMID: 11467271)
BMC Fam Pract. 2011 Aug 10;12:85. (PMID: 21831317)
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Apr;63(609):e291-9. (PMID: 23540486)
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):53-7. (PMID: 12571346)
Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 Jan-Feb;24(1):138-50. (PMID: 15647225)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 07;(9):CD008451. (PMID: 21901722)
BMJ. 2007 Jun 30;334(7608):1357. (PMID: 17580318)
Ann Fam Med. 2008 May-Jun;6(3):228-34. (PMID: 18474885)
BMJ. 2011 Jan 24;342:c7085. (PMID: 21262894)
BMJ. 2014 Feb 10;348:g1413. (PMID: 24516082)

Date Created: 20141027 Date Completed: 20150710 Latest Revision: 20240509

20240509

PMC4213492

10.1186/s12875-014-0168-7

25344735