Payment for performance is driving major changes in the roles and organization of English primary health care teams. Non-incentivized activities and patients' concerns may receive less clinical attention. Practitioners would benefit from improved dissemination of the evidence justifying the inclusion of new performance indicators in the QOF.

Background Provision of universal coverage is essential for achieving equity in healthcare, but inequalities still exist in universal healthcare systems. Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, which has provided universal coverage since 1948, made sustained efforts to reduce health inequalities by strengthening primary care. We provide the first comprehensive assessment of trends in socioeconomic inequalities of primary care access, quality and outcomes during this period. Methods Whole-population small area longitudinal study based on 32 482 neighbourhoods of approximately 1500 people in England from 2004/2005 to 2011/2012. We measured slope indices of inequality in four indicators: (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) preventable emergency hospital admissions and (4) mortality from conditions considered amenable to healthcare. Results Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, there were larger absolute improvements on all indicators in more-deprived neighbourhoods. The modelled gap between the most-deprived and least-deprived neighbourhoods in England decreased by: 193 patients per family doctor (95% CI 173 to 213), 3.29 percentage points of primary care quality (3.13 to 3.45), 0.42 preventable hospitalisations per 1000 people (0.29 to 0.55) and 0.23 amenable deaths per 1000 people (0.15 to 0.31). By 2011/2012, inequalities in primary care supply and quality were almost eliminated, but socioeconomic inequality was still associated with 158 396 preventable hospitalisations and 37 983 deaths amenable to healthcare. Conclusions Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the NHS succeeded in substantially reducing socioeconomic inequalities in primary care access and quality, but made only modest reductions in healthcare outcome inequalities.

ObjectivesPrimary care patients typically have less severe illness than those in hospital and may be overtreated if clinical guideline evidence is inappropriately generalized. We aimed to assess whether guideline recommendations for primary care were based on relevant research.Study Design and SettingLiterature review of all publications cited in support of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations for primary care. The relevance to primary care of all 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011, and their recommendations, was assessed by an expert panel.ResultsTwenty-two of 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011 were relevant to primary care. These 22 guidelines contained 1,185 recommendations, of which 495 were relevant to primary care, and cited evidence from 1,573 research publications. Of these cited publications, 590 (38%, range by guideline 6–74%) were based on patients typical of primary care.ConclusionNearly two-third (62%) of publications cited to support primary care recommendations were of uncertain relevance to patients in primary care. Guideline development groups should more clearly identify which recommendations are intended for primary care and uncertainties about the relevance of the supporting evidence to primary care patients, to avoid potential overtreatment.

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a pioneering attempt to improve the quality of primary care in the UK through the use of financial rewards. Despite its achievements, there are concerns that the QOF may offer poor value for money. AimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of QOF payments. Design of studyEconomic analysis. SettingEngland, UK. MethodCost-effectiveness evidence was identified for a subset of nine QOF indicators with a direct therapeutic impact. These data were then applied to an analytic framework to determine the conditions under which QOF payments would be cost-effective. This framework was constructed to assess the costeffectiveness of QOF payments by modelling the incentive structure using cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, to represent good value to the NHS. It used 2004/2005 data on the QOF performance of all English primary care practices. ResultsAverage indicator payments ranged from £0.63 to £40.61 per patient, and the percentage of eligible patients treated ranged from 63% to 90%. The proportional changes required for QOF payments to be cost-effective varied widely between the indicators. Although most indicators required only a fraction of a 1% change to be cost-effective, for some indicators improvements in performance of around 20% were needed. ConclusionFor most indicators that can be assessed, QOF incentive payments are likely to be a cost-effective use of resources for a high proportion of primary care practices, even if the QOF achieves only modest improvements in care. However, only a small subset of the indicators has been considered, and no account has been taken of the costs of administering the QOF scheme. Keywordscost-effectiveness; family practice; health care; physician incentive plans; quality indicators.

BackgroundGeneral practices in the UK contract with the government to receive additional payments for highquality primary care. Little is known about the resulting impact on population health. AimTo estimate the potential reduction in population mortality from implementation of the pay-forperformance contract in England. Design of studyCross-sectional and modelling study. SettingPrimary care in England. MethodTwenty-five clinical quality indicators in the contract had controlled trial evidence of mortality benefit. This was combined with condition prevalence, and the differences in performance before and after contract implementation, to estimate the potential mortality reduction per indicator. Improvement was adjusted for pre-existing trends where data were available. ResultsThe 2004 contract potentially reduced mortality by 11 lives per 100 000 people (lower-upper estimates 7-16) over 1 year, as performance improved from baseline to the target for full incentive payment. If all eligible patients were treated, over and above the target, 56 (29-81) lives per 100 000 might have been saved. For the 2006 contract, mortality reduction was effectively zero, because new baseline performance for a typical practice had already exceeded the target performance for full payment. ConclusionThe contract may have delivered substantial health gain, but potential health gain was limited by performance targets for full payment being set lower than typical baseline performance. Information on both baseline performance and population health gain should inform decisions about future selection of indicators for pay-for-performance schemes, and the level of performance at which full payment is triggered. Keywordsphysician incentive plans; primary health care; quality indicators; quality of health care.

The current literature suggests that greater knowledge of the pathology of OA, management of symptoms, promotion of functional activity for patients and their family/friends networks, and understanding to better inform OA patient's role in society are all important elements that affect a person's attitude to OA. By better understanding these factors during future consultations, clinicians may forge stronger relationships with their patients to more effectively manage this long-term disabling condition.

This paper determines the perceptions of people diagnosed with osteoarthritis towards their conservative management strategies. A systematic review of the published (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SportsDisc, MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, PubMed) and unpublished/trial registry databases (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials, the United States National Institute of Health Trials Registry, NIHR Clinical Research Portfolio Database) searched from their inception to July 2013. Eligible studies included those which presented the attitudes or perceptions of people with osteoarthritis towards non-operative management strategies. Study quality was appraised using the CASP and the Gough's weight of evidence appraisal tools. Data were analysed through a meta-ethnography approach. Thirty-three studies including 1,314 people with osteoarthritis were sampled; the majority diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis. The overarching themes indicated people with osteoarthritis delay their diagnosis, opting for self-management and informal information gathering. This informal rather than health professional-led guidance is sought and maintained as an important resource throughout the care of this population and is valued. Diagnosis is sought at a 'critical point'. Healthcare interventions largely provided are poorly perceived. The period of subsequent self-management is an expectation before the inevitable requirement for joint replacement. There remains uncertainty regarding when this is required, but the expected failure of conservative treatment to manage pain and symptoms is common. In conclusion, patients should be enthused towards the principles of self-management and clinicians should not trivialise osteoarthritis. This may provide a more valuable perception of non-operative management to promote its adoption and adherence in managing osteoarthritis.

ObjectiveTo measure changes in socioeconomic inequality in the distribution of family physicians (general practitioners (GPs)) relative to need in England from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014.DesignWhole-population small area longitudinal data linkage study.SettingEngland from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014.Participants32 482 lower layer super output areas (neighbourhoods of 1500 people on average).Main outcome measuresSlope index of inequality (SII) between the most and least deprived small areas in annual full-time equivalent GPs (FTE GPs) per 100 000 need adjusted population.ResultsIn 2004/2005, inequality in primary care supply as measured by the SII in FTE GPs was 4.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 5.3) GPs per 100 000. By 2013/2014, this SII had fallen to −0.7 (95% CI −2.5 to 1.1) GPs per 100 000. The number of FTE GPs per 100 000 serving the most deprived fifth of small areas increased over this period from 54.0 to 60.5, while increasing from 57.2 to 59.9 in the least deprived fifth, so that by the end of the study period there were more GPs per 100 000 need adjusted population in the most deprived areas than in the least deprived. The increase in GP supply in the most deprived fifth of neighbourhoods was larger in areas that received targeted investment for establishing new practices under the ‘Equitable Access to Primary Medical Care’.ConclusionsThere was a substantial reduction in socioeconomic inequality in family physician supply associated with national policy. This policy may not have completely eliminated socioeconomic inequality in family physician supply since existing need adjustment formulae do not fully capture the additional burden of multimorbidity in deprived neighbourhoods. The small area approach introduced in this study can be used routinely to monitor socioeconomic inequality of access to primary care and to indicate workforce shortages in particular neighbourhoods. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0