Relationship between quality of care and choice of clinical computing system: retrospective analysis of family practice performance under the UK's quality and outcomes framework

Objectives To investigate the relationship between performance on the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme and choice of clinical computer system. Design Retrospective longitudinal study. Setting Data for 2007–2008 to 2010–2011, extracted from the clinical computer systems of general practices in England. Participants All English practices participating in the pay-for-performance scheme: average 8257 each year, covering over 99% of the English population registered with a general practice. Main outcome measures Levels of achievement on 62 quality-of-care indicators, measured as: reported achievement (levels of care after excluding inappropriate patients); population achievement (levels of care for all patients with the relevant condition) and percentage of available quality points attained. Multilevel mixed effects multiple linear regression models were used to identify population, practice and clinical computing system predictors of achievement. Results Seven clinical computer systems were consistently active in the study period, collectively holding approximately 99% of the market share. Of all population and practice characteristics assessed, choice of clinical computing system was the strongest predictor of performance across all three outcome measures. Differences between systems were greatest for intermediate outcomes indicators (eg, control of cholesterol levels). Conclusions Under the UK's pay-for-performance scheme, differences in practice performance were associated with the choice of clinical computing system. This raises the question of whether particular system characteristics facilitate higher quality of care, better data recording or both. Inconsistencies across systems need to be understood and addressed, and researchers need to be cautious when generalising findings from samples of providers using a single computing system.

[1]  Martin Roland,et al.  Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care--a major experiment in the United kingdom. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Recorded quality of primary care for patients with diabetes in England before and after the introduction of a financial incentive scheme: a longitudinal observational study , 2012, BMJ quality & safety.

[3]  L. Siciliani,et al.  Family doctor responses to changes in incentives for influenza immunization under the U.K. Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme. , 2012, Health services research.

[4]  B. Guthrie,et al.  Differences in the quality of primary medical care services by remoteness from urban settlements , 2007, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[5]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  Variation in clinical coding lists in UK general practice: a barrier to consistent data entry? , 2007, Informatics in primary care.

[6]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 1998, JAMA.

[7]  H. Mcdonald,et al.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.

[8]  Tom Chan,et al.  The Development of Primary Care Information Technology in the United Kingdom , 2008, The Journal of ambulatory care management.

[9]  Matt Sutton,et al.  How to identify when a performance indicator has run its course , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy , 1986 .

[11]  J. Valderas,et al.  Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. , 2011, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  J. Valderas,et al.  Exempting dissenting patients from pay for performance schemes: retrospective analysis of exception reporting in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  G. Watt,et al.  Practice size and quality attainment under the new GMS contract: a cross-sectional analysis. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[14]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  E Riley,et al.  Statistical analysis of highly skewed immune response data. , 1997, Journal of immunological methods.

[16]  D. Bates,et al.  Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. , 1998, JAMA.

[17]  Kath Checkland,et al.  Ticking Boxes and Changing the Social World: Data Collection and the New UK General Practice Contract , 2007 .

[18]  E. Balas,et al.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  M. Ashworth,et al.  The relationship between general practice characteristics and quality of care: a national survey of quality indicators used in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2004–5 , 2006, BMC family practice.

[20]  Jeremy Gray Mrcp Mrcgp,et al.  Ethnicity and Quality of Diabetes Care in a Health System with Universal Coverage: Population-Based Cross-sectional Survey in Primary Care , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[21]  D. Reeves,et al.  Effect of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the quality and outcomes framework , 2008, The Lancet.

[22]  C. Delpierre,et al.  A systematic review of computer-based patient record systems and quality of care: more randomized clinical trials or a broader approach? , 2004, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[23]  A. Localio,et al.  Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. , 2005, JAMA.

[24]  G Hripcsak,et al.  Decision support in healthcare. , 1995, International journal of bio-medical computing.

[25]  H. Lester The UK quality and outcomes framework , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  E. Shortliffe Computer programs to support clinical decision making. , 1990, JAMA.

[27]  Paul G Shekelle,et al.  Costs and benefits of health information technology : an updated systematic review , 2009 .

[28]  M. Roland,et al.  Performance of small general practices under the UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework. , 2010, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[29]  Rachel Dwyer,et al.  Impact of the QOF and the NICE guideline in the diagnosis and management of depression: a qualitative study. , 2011, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.