School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, London, UK.
School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, London, UK
BMJ Open Qual. 2021 Feb;10(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127.
In the UK, the National Health Service has various incentivisation schemes in place to improve the provision of high-quality care. The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) and other Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes are incentive frameworks that focus on meeting predetermined clinical outcomes. However, the ability of these schemes to meet their aims is debated.
(1) To explore current incentive schemes available in general practice in the UK, their impact and effectiveness in improving quality of care and (2) To identify other types of incentives discussed in the literature.
This systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane, PubMed, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Health Management Information Consortium, Embase and Health Management. Articles were screened according to the selection criteria, evaluated against critical appraisal checklists and categorised into themes.
35 articles were included from an initial search result of 22087. Articles were categorised into the following three overarching themes: financial incentives, non-financial incentives and competition.
The majority of the literature focused on QOF. Its positive effects included reduced mortality rates, better data recording and improved sociodemographic inequalities. However, limitations involved decreased quality of care in non-incentivised activities, poor patient experiences due to tick-box exercises and increased pressure to meet non-specific targets. Findings surrounding competition were mixed, with limited evidence found on the use of non-financial incentives in primary care.
Current research looks extensively into financial incentives, however, we propose more research into the effects of intrinsic motivation alongside existing P4P schemes to enhance motivation and improve quality of care.
在英国,国民保健制度(NHS)实施了各种激励计划,以提高高质量护理的提供。质量成果框架(QOF)和其他按绩效付费(P4P)计划是专注于实现预定临床结果的激励框架。然而,这些计划实现其目标的能力存在争议。
(1)探讨英国普通实践中现有的激励计划、它们在提高护理质量方面的影响和有效性,(2)确定文献中讨论的其他类型的激励措施。
本系统文献综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南进行。使用了 Cochrane、PubMed、国家卫生与保健卓越研究所证据、健康管理信息联盟、Embase 和健康管理六个数据库进行搜索。根据筛选标准筛选文章,对照批判性评价清单进行评估,并分为主题。
从最初的 22087 个搜索结果中筛选出 35 篇文章。文章分为以下三个总体主题:经济激励、非经济激励和竞争。
大多数文献都集中在 QOF 上。其积极影响包括降低死亡率、更好的数据记录和改善社会人口不平等。然而,也存在非激励活动质量下降、由于勾选框练习导致患者体验不佳以及为满足非特定目标而增加压力等局限性。关于竞争的研究结果喜忧参半,关于非经济激励在初级保健中的使用的证据有限。
现有研究广泛关注经济激励措施,但我们建议在现有的 P4P 计划中,更多地研究内在动机对激励和提高护理质量的影响。