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.

Objective To assess the receipt of effective healthcare interventions in England by adults aged 50 or more with serious health conditions. Design National structured survey questionnaire with face to face interviews covering medical panel endorsed quality of care indicators for both publicly and privately provided care. Setting Private households across England. Participants 8688 participants in the English longitudinal study of ageing, of whom 4417 reported diagnoses of one or more of 13 conditions. Main outcome measures Percentage of indicated interventions received by eligible participants for 32 clinical indicators and seven questions on patient centred care, and aggregate scores. Results Participants were eligible for 19 082 items of indicated care. Receipt of indicated care varied substantially by condition. The percentage of indicated care received by eligible participants was highest for ischaemic heart disease (83%, 95% confidence interval 80% to 86%), followed by hearing problems (79%, 77% to 81%), pain management (78%, 73% to 83%), diabetes (74%, 72% to 76%), smoking cessation (74%, 71% to 76%), hypertension (72%, 69% to 76%), stroke (65%, 54% to 76%), depression (64%, 57% to 70%), patient centred care (58%, 57% to 60%), poor vision (58%, 54% to 63%), osteoporosis (53%, 49% to 57%), urinary incontinence (51%, 47% to 54%), falls management (44%, 37% to 51%), osteoarthritis (29%, 26% to 32%), and overall (62%, 62% to 63%). Substantially more indicated care was received for general medical (74%, 73% to 76%) than for geriatric conditions (57%, 55% to 58%), and for conditions included in the general practice pay for performance contract (75%, 73% to 76%) than excluded from it (58%, 56% to 59%). Conclusions Shortfalls in receipt of basic recommended care by adults aged 50 or more with common health conditions in England were most noticeable in areas associated with disability and frailty, but few areas were exempt. Efforts to improve care have substantial scope to achieve better health outcomes and particularly need to include chronic conditions that affect quality of life of older people.

INTRODUCTION Osteoarthritis causes substantial morbidity in developed countries. In the UK it is the most prevalent chronic disease among adults aged 65 years and over, affecting 32% of men and 47% of women.1 It is also the most common cause of disability.2 Osteoarthritis is an age-related condition,3 and there is a greater level of need among women and those from more deprived backgrounds.4 Those in poorer socioeconomic groups and women have higher levels of need for hip and knee replacement but receive relatively fewer joint replacements.4–6 Many individuals are living for prolonged periods with severe osteoarthritis. High-quality primary care is of clear importance for such a prevalent condition that has both major personal and social impact. This has been recognised by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which has recently published guidelines for the care and management of osteoarthritis in adults.7 However, there is little published information on the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis in the UK. US studies have found the quality of osteoarthritis primary care to be suboptimal, with achievement of quality measures ranging from 31% to 64%.8 This study assessed the overall quality of recorded osteoarthritis treatment in primary care in an English county. It also assessed whether the recorded ABSTRACT Background Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic disease in the UK, with greater prevalence in women, older people, and those with poorer socioeconomic status. Effective treatments are available, yet little is known about the quality of primary care for this disabling condition. Aim To measure the recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and assess variations by patient and/or practice characteristics. Design of study Retrospective observational study. Setting Eighteen general practices in England. Method Records of 320/393 randomly selected patients with osteoarthritis (response rate 81%) were reviewed. High-quality health care was specified by nine quality indicators. Logistic regression modelling assessed variations in quality by age, sex, deprivation, severity, time since diagnosis, and practice size. Results There was substantial variation in the recorded achievement of individual indicators (range 5% to 90%). The percentage of eligible patients whose records show that they received care in the form of information provision ranged from 17% to 30%. For regular assessment indicators the range was 27% to 43%, and for treatment indicators the range was 5% to 90%. Recorded achievement of quality indicators was higher in those with more severe osteoarthritis (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.69) and in older patients (OR 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28). There were no significant variations by deprivation score. Conclusion This study has demonstrated the feasibility of using existing robust quality indicators to measure the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and has found considerable scope for improvement in the recording of high-quality care. The...

Nutritional assessments are frequently based on amounts of nutrients consumed. In the present paper the usefulness of nutrient intake data for assessing nutrient adequacy is examined in an elderly British population. Subjects were 'free-living' elderly aged 68-90 years (sixty men, eightyfive women) in Norwich. Forty-two of forty-nine surviving males and sixty-seven of seventy-nine surviving females were reassessed after 2 years. With few exceptions, estimated micronutrient intake was not statistically predictive of biochemical measures of nutrient adequacy. Initial biochemical measures of nutritional adequacy were compared with those found 2 years later in an attempt to assess whether initial biochemical assessment was predictive of the 'longer term' situation. Biochemical measurements at the start of the study were correlated to the same measurements made 2 years later for: serum ferritin, haemoglobin and erythrocyte count, wholeblood Se-glutathione peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.9; males only), plasma Cu, alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.1), ascorbic acid, vitamin B6 (pyridoxal-5-phosphate), folate and vitamin Blz, total erythrocyte thiamin (males only), riboflavin (erythrocyte glutathione reductase (EC 1.6.4.1) activation coefficient): but not for: erythrocyte Cu-superoxide dismutase (EC 1.15.1.1) or plasma Zn. Either only small changes, or no changes, in mean values were seen over the 2 years for most of the biochemical measures. One exception was a large increase in plasma folate. The only important 'negative' features seen at 2-year follow up were a large fall in serum ferritin concentration and a large increase in the activity of two antioxidant defence enzymes, superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase. As judged by currently accepted biochemical deficiency threshold values, a small proportion of subjects were possibly at risk of Fe (3 % men; 1 % women), folate (7 %, 3 %), thiamin (12 %; 3 %) and vitamin C (15 %; 17 %) deficiency. Many more appeared to be at risk of vitamin B6 (42 %; 47 %) and riboflavin (77 %; 79 %) deficiency. It was concluded that the requirements of the elderly for vitamins B1, B2 and C, and the biochemical deficiency threshold vahes used to indicate vitamin B6 deficiency, need review.

BackgroundSince 2006 the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) has rewarded GPs for carrying out standardised assessments of the severity of symptoms of depression in newly diagnosed patients. AimTo gain understanding of GPs' opinions and perceived impact on practice of the routine introduction of standardised questionnaire measures of severity of depression through the UK general practice contract QOF. Design of studySemi-structured qualitative interview study, with purposive sampling and constant comparative analysis. SettingThirty-four GPs from among 38 study general practices in three sites in England, UK: Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. MethodGPs were interviewed at a time convenient to them by trained interviewers. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim in preparation for thematic analysis, to identify key views. ResultsAnalysis of the interviews suggested that the use of severity questionnaires posed an intrusion into the consultation. GPs discursively polarised two technologies: formal assessment versus personal enquiry, emphasising the need to ensure the scores are used sensitively and as an aid to clinical judgement rather than as a substitute. Importantly, these challenges implicitly served a function of preserving GPs' identities as professionals with expertise, constructed as integral to the process of diagnosis. ConclusionGP accounts indicated concern about threats to patient care. Contention between using severity questionnaires and delivering individualised patient care is significantly motivated by GP concerns to preserve professional expertise and identity. It is important to learn from GP concerns to help establish how best to optimise the use of severity questionnaires in depression. Keywordsdepression; diagnosis; general practice. INTRODUCTIONIn April 2004, the UK government incorporated a payfor-performance scheme in the GP contract, through the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Since April 2006 the contract has rewarded GPs for carrying out assessments of the severity of symptoms of depression at the outset of treatment in patients with a new diagnosis. 1 The rationale is that national guidelines on depression recommend more active intervention for patients with moderate to severe depression (antidepressant treatment or referral for psychological treatment) than for mild depression (guided self-help and watchful waiting), 2 and therefore accurate assessment of severity is necessary to decide on appropriate responses to new cases.The QOF has not been received without controversy. Some have suggested it is in danger of encouraging a 'medicine by numbers' approach to