O'Donnell Amy, Haighton Catherine, Chappel David, Shevills Colin, Kaner Eileen
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Department of Public Health and Wellbeing, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Nov 25;17(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0561-5.
Local and national financial incentives were introduced in England between 2008 and 2015 to encourage screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery in primary care. We used routine Read Code data and interviews with General Practitioners (GPs) to assess their impact.
A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted in 16 general practices representing 106,700 patients and 99 GPs across two areas in Northern England. Data were extracted on screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery for 2010-11 and rates were calculated by practice incentive status. Semi-structured interviews with 14 GPs explored which factors influence intervention delivery and recording in routine consultations.
Screening and brief alcohol intervention rates were higher in financially incentivised compared to non-incentivised practices. However absolute rates were low across all practices. Rates of short screening test administration ranged from 0.05% (95% CI: 0.03-0.08) in non-incentivised practices to 3.92% (95% CI: 3.70-4.14) in nationally incentivised practices. For the full AUDIT, rates were also highest in nationally incentivised practices (3.68%, 95% CI: 3.47-3.90) and lowest in non-incentivised practices (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.13-0.22). Delivery of alcohol interventions was highest in practices signed up to the national incentive scheme (9.23%, 95% CI: 8.91-9.57) and lowest in non-incentivised practices (4.73%, 95% CI: 4.50-4.96). GP Interviews highlighted a range of influences on alcohol intervention delivery and subsequent recording including: the hierarchy of different financial incentive schemes; mixed belief in the efficacy of alcohol interventions; the difficulty of codifying complex conditions; and GPs' beliefs about patient-centred practice.
Financial incentives have had some success in encouraging screening and brief alcohol interventions in England, but levels of recorded activity remain low. To improve performance, future policies must prioritise alcohol prevention work within the quality and outcomes framework, and address the values, attitudes and beliefs that shape how GPs' provide care.
2008年至2015年期间,英国出台了地方和国家财政激励措施,以鼓励在初级保健中开展筛查和简短酒精干预。我们使用常规的读码数据以及对全科医生(GPs)的访谈来评估其影响。
在英格兰北部两个地区的16家全科诊所开展了一项顺序解释性混合方法研究,这些诊所代表了106,700名患者和99名全科医生。提取了2010 - 2011年筛查和简短酒精干预的数据,并按实践激励状态计算比率。对14名全科医生进行了半结构化访谈,探讨了哪些因素会影响常规会诊中的干预实施和记录。
与未受激励的诊所相比,受到财政激励的诊所的筛查和简短酒精干预率更高。然而,所有诊所的绝对比率都很低。简短筛查测试的实施率范围从未受激励诊所的0.05%(95%置信区间:0.03 - 0.08)到国家激励诊所的3.92%(95%置信区间:3.70 - 4.14)。对于完整的酒精使用障碍识别测试(AUDIT),国家激励诊所的比率也最高(3.68%,95%置信区间:3.47 - 3.90),未受激励诊所的比率最低(0.17%,95%置信区间:0.13 - 0.22)。在参与国家激励计划的诊所中,酒精干预的实施率最高(9.23%,95%置信区间:8.91 - 9.57),未受激励诊所的实施率最低(4.73%,95%置信区间:4.50 - 4.96)。全科医生访谈强调了一系列对酒精干预实施及后续记录的影响因素,包括:不同财政激励计划的层级;对酒精干预效果的不同看法;将复杂情况编码的困难;以及全科医生对以患者为中心的实践的看法。
财政激励措施在鼓励英国的筛查和简短酒精干预方面取得了一些成功,但记录的活动水平仍然很低。为了提高绩效,未来政策必须在质量和结果框架内将酒精预防工作作为优先事项,并解决影响全科医生提供护理方式的价值观、态度和信念问题。