Primary care funding, contract status, and outcomes: an observational study.

BACKGROUND

The introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides a quantitative way of assessing quality of care in general practice. We explore the achievements of general practice in the first year of the QOF, with specific reference to practice funding and contract status.

AIM

To determine the extent to which differences in funding and contract status affect quality in primary care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Cross-sectional observational study using practice data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

SETTING

One hundred and sixty-four practices from six primary care trusts (PCTs) in England.

METHOD

Practice data for all 164 practices were collated for income and contract status. The outcome measure was QOF score for the year 2004-2005. All data were analysed statistically.

RESULTS

Contract status has an impact on practice funding, with Employed Medical Services (EMS) and Personal Medical Services (PMS) practices receiving higher levels of funding than General Medical Services (GMS) practices (P<0.001). QOF scores also vary according to contract status. Higher funding levels in EMS practices are associated with lower QOF scores (P=0.04); while GMS practices exhibited the opposite trend, with higher-funded practices achieving better quality scores (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

GMS practices are the most efficient contract status, achieving high quality scores for an average of pound 62.51 per patient per year. By contrast, EMS practices are underperforming, achieving low quality scores for an average of pound 105.37 per patient per year. Funding and contract status are therefore important factors in determining achievement in the QOF.