The Experience of Pay for Performance in English Family Practice: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE We conducted an in-depth exploration of family physicians’ and nurses’ beliefs and concerns about changes to the family health care service as a result of the new pay-for-performance scheme in the United Kingdom (Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF]). METHODS Using a semistructured interview format, we interviewed 21 family doctors and 20 nurses in 22 nationally representative practices across England between February and August 2007. RESULTS Participants believed the financial incentives had been sufficient to change behavior and to achieve targets. The findings suggest that it is not necessary to align targets to professional priorities and values to obtain behavior change, although doing so enhances enthusiasm and understanding. Participants agreed that the aims of the pay-for-performance scheme had been met in terms of improvements in disease-specific processes of patient care and physician income, as well as improved data capture. It also led to unintended effects, such as the emergence of a dual QOF-patient agenda within consultations, potential deskilling of doctors as a result of the enhanced role for nurses in managing long-term conditions, a decline in personal/relational continuity of care between doctors and patients, resentment by team members not benefiting financially from payments, and concerns about an ongoing culture of performance monitoring in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS The QOF scheme may have achieved its declared objectives of improving disease-specific processes of patient care through the achievement of clinical and organizational targets and increased physician income, but our findings suggest that it has changed the dynamic between doctors and nurses and the nature of the practitioner-patient consultation.

[1]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  Shinjini Bhatnagar,et al.  Lactose intolerance , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  Kath Checkland,et al.  Impact of financial incentives on clinical autonomy and internal motivation in primary care: ethnographic study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  D. Mangin,et al.  The Quality and Outcomes Framework: what have you done to yourselves? , 2007, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[5]  H. Slater,et al.  Diabetes care and the new GMS contract: the evidence for a whole county. , 2007, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[6]  P. Seed,et al.  The relationship between social deprivation and the quality of primary care: a national survey using indicators from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. , 2007, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[7]  S. Mercer,et al.  Ellipsis marks an important omission , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  J. Rowe Pay-for-Performance and Accountability: Related Themes in Improving Health Care , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  E. Fisher Paying for performance--risks and recommendations. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  B. Guthrie,et al.  Workload and reward in the Quality and Outcomes Framework of the 2004 general practice contract. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  Laura Petersen,et al.  Does Pay-for-Performance Improve the Quality of Health Care? , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

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

[13]  K. Safavi Patient-centered pay for performance: Are we missing the target? , 2006, Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives.

[14]  Jim A. Wright,et al.  Overall quality of outcomes framework scores lower in practices in deprived areas. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[15]  M. Sutton,et al.  Determinants of primary medical care quality measured under the new UK contract: cross sectional study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Julie M Hook,et al.  Incentive Implementation in Physician Practices: A Qualitative Study of Practice Executive Perspectives on Pay for Performance , 2006, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[17]  Stephen Campbell,et al.  Financial incentives to improve the quality of primary care in the UK: predicting the consequences of change , 2006, Primary Health Care Research & Development.

[18]  M. Roland,et al.  The Contribution of General Practice and the General Practitioner to NHS Patients , 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[19]  David Reeves,et al.  Improvements in quality of clinical care in English general practice 1998-2003: longitudinal observational study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  Dan Berlowitz,et al.  Conceptual Issues in the Design and Implementation of Pay-for-Quality Programs , 2005, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[21]  R. Kane,et al.  Economic incentives and physicians' delivery of preventive care: a systematic review. , 2005, American journal of preventive medicine.

[22]  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.

[23]  D. Clair,et al.  Brave New Brain: Conquering Mental Illness in the Era of the Genome , 2002, Heredity.

[24]  S. Brouse Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, 2nd edition by David Silverman. Sage, London, 2001, 325 pages, £17·99, ISBN 0 761 96865 2. , 2002 .

[25]  A. Chapple,et al.  What makes British general practitioners take part in a quality improvement scheme? , 2001, Journal of health services research & policy.

[26]  P Kinnersley,et al.  Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[27]  C P Bradley,et al.  Patients' unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: qualitative study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1993 .

[29]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[30]  L. Kohn,et al.  COMMITTEE ON QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA , 2000 .

[31]  C. Kilo,et al.  Rethinking incentives. , 2000, The Journal of medical practice management : MPM.

[32]  D. Silverman Interpreting Qualitative Data , 1993 .