Quality of Care in the United Kingdom after Removal of Financial Incentives.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of pay-for-performance schemes in improving the quality of care remain uncertain. There is little information on the effect of removing incentives from existing pay-for-performance schemes. METHODS: We conducted interrupted time-series analyses of electronic medical record (EMR) data from 2010 to 2017 for 12 quality-of-care indicators in the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework for which financial incentives were removed in 2014 and 6 indicators for which incentives were maintained. We estimated the effects of removing incentives on changes in performance on quality-of-care measures. RESULTS: Complete longitudinal data were available for 2819 English primary care practices with more than 20 million registered patients. There were immediate reductions in documented quality of care for all 12 indicators in the first year after the removal of financial incentives. Reductions were greatest for indicators related to health advice, with a reduction of 62.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -65.6 to -59.0) in EMR documentation of lifestyle counseling for patients with hypertension. Changes were smaller for indicators involving clinical actions that automatically update the EMR, such as laboratory testing, with a reduction of 10.7 percentage points (95% CI, -13.6 to -7.8) in control of cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease and 12.1 percentage points (95% CI, -13.6 to -10.6) for thyroid-function testing in patients with hypothyroidism. There was little change in performance on the 6 quality measures for which incentives were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of financial incentives was associated with an immediate decline in performance on quality measures. In part, the decline probably reflected changes in EMR documentation, but declines on measures involving laboratory testing suggest that incentive removal also changed the care delivered.

Development and validation of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score.

BACKGROUND: Health services have failed to respond to the pressures of multimorbidity. Improved measures of multimorbidity are needed for conducting research, planning services and allocating resources. METHODS: We modelled the association between 37 morbidities and 3 key outcomes (primary care consultations, unplanned hospital admission, death) at 1 and 5 years. We extracted development (n = 300 000) and validation (n = 150 000) samples from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We constructed a general-outcome multimorbidity score by averaging the standardized weights of the separate outcome scores. We compared performance with the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Models that included all 37 conditions were acceptable predictors of general practitioner consultations (C-index 0.732, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.731-0.734), unplanned hospital admission (C-index 0.742, 95% CI 0.737-0.747) and death at 1 year (C-index 0.912, 95% CI 0.905-0.918). Models reduced to the 20 conditions with the greatest combined prevalence/weight showed similar predictive ability (C-indices 0.727, 95% CI 0.725-0.728; 0.738, 95% CI 0.732-0.743; and 0.910, 95% CI 0.904-0.917, respectively). They also predicted 5-year outcomes similarly for consultations and death (C-indices 0.735, 95% CI 0.734-0.736, and 0.889, 95% CI 0.885-0.892, respectively) but performed less well for admissions (C-index 0.708, 95% CI 0.705-0.712). The performance of the general-outcome score was similar to that of the outcome-specific models. These models performed significantly better than those based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index for consultations (C-index 0.691, 95% CI 0.690-0.693) and admissions (C-index 0.703, 95% CI 0.697-0.709) and similarly for mortality (C-index 0.907, 95% CI 0.900-0.914). INTERPRETATION: The Cambridge Multimorbidity Score is robust and can be either tailored or not tailored to specific health outcomes. It will be valuable to those planning clinical services, policymakers allocating resources and researchers seeking to account for the effect of multimorbidity.

When is referral from primary care to specialist services appropriate for survivors of stroke? A modified RAND-appropriateness consensus study.

BACKGROUND: There is guidance in the United Kingdom about what long-term care stroke survivors should receive, but a lack of guidance about who should deliver it and where this care should take place. This is a key issue given the evidence that current needs are not well addressed. The purpose of this study was to explore when a referral from generalist to specialist services is appropriate in the long-term management of stroke survivors. METHODS: A modified RAND-Appropriateness method was used to gain consensus from a range of stroke specialist and generalist clinicians. Ten panelists rated fictional patient scenarios based on long-term post-stroke needs. Round 1 was an online survey in which panelists rated the scenarios for a) need for referral to specialist care and b) if referral was deemed necessary, need for this to be specifically to a stroke specialist. Round 2 was a face-to-face meeting in which panelists were presented with aggregate scores from round 1, and invited to discuss and then re-rate the scenarios. RESULTS: Seventeen scenarios comprising 69 referral decisions were discussed. Consensus on whether the patient needed to be referred to a specialist was achieved for 59 (86%) decisions. Of the 44 deemed needing referral to specialists, 18 were judged to need referral to a stroke-specialist and 14 to a different specialist. However, for 12 decisions there was no consensus about which specialist the patient should be referred to. For some scenarios (spasticity; incontinence; physical disability; communication; cognition), referral was deemed to be indicated regardless of severity, whereas indications for referral for topics such as risk factor management and pain depended on complexity and/or severity. CONCLUSIONS: There was broad agreement about when a stroke survivor requires referral to specialist care, but less agreement about destination of referral. Nevertheless, there was agreement that some of the longer-term issues facing stroke survivors are best addressed by stroke specialists, some by other specialists, and some by primary care. This has implications for models of longer-term stroke care, which need to reflect that optimal care requires access to, and better co-ordination between, both generalist and specialist healthcare.

Opportunities and barriers for providing HIV testing through community health centers in mainland China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Primary care may be an avenue to increase coverage of HIV testing but it is unclear what challenges primary healthcare professionals in low- and middle-income countries face. We describe the HIV testing practices in community health centres (CHCs) and explore the staff's attitude towards further development of HIV testing services at the primary care level in China. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey using a stratified random sample of CHCs in 20 cities in 2015. Questionnaires were completed by primary care doctors and nurses in CHCs, and included questions regarding their demographics, clinical experience and their views on the facilitators and barriers to offering HIV testing in their CHC. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between staff who would offer HIV testing and their sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3580 staff from 158 CHCs participated. Despite the majority (81%) agreeing that HIV testing was an important part of healthcare, only 25% would provide HIV testing when requested by a patient. The majority (71%) were concerned about reimbursement, and half (47%) cited lack of training as a major barrier. Almost half (44%) believed that treating people belonging to high-risk populations would scare other patients away, and 6% openly expressed their dislike of people belonging to high-risk populations. Staff who would offer HIV testing were younger (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97 per year increase in age, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.97-0.98); trained as a doctor compared to a nurse (aOR 1.79, 95%CI:1.46-2.15); held a bachelor degree or above (aOR 1.34, 95%CI:1.11-1.62); and had previous HIV training (aOR 1.55, 95%CI:1.27-1.89). CONCLUSIONS: Improving HIV training of CHC staff, including addressing stigmatizing attitudes, and improving financial reimbursement may help increase HIV testing coverage in China.

Associations between general practice characteristics with use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer and endoscopies: a cross-sectional ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Large variation in measures of diagnostic activity has been described previously between English general practices, but related predictors remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between general practice population and characteristics, with the use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and use of endoscopy. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of English general practices. We examined practice-level use (/1000 patients/year) of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We used mixed-effects Poisson regression to examine associations with the sociodemographic profile of practice populations and other practice attributes, including the average age, sex and country of qualification of practice doctors. RESULTS: The sociodemographic characteristics of registered patients explained much of the between-practice variance in use of urgent referrals (32%) and endoscopic investigations (18-25%), all being higher in practices with older and more socioeconomically deprived patients. Practice-level attributes explained a substantial amount of between-practice variance in urgent referral (19%) but little of the variance in endoscopy (3%-4%). Adjusted urgent referral rates were higher in training practices and those with younger GPs. Practices with mean doctor ages of 41 and 57 years (at the 10th/90th centiles of the national distribution) would have urgent referral rates of 24.1 and 19.1/1000 registered patients, P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Most between-practice variation in use of urgent referrals and endoscopies seems to reflect health need. Some practice characteristics, such as the mean age of GPs, are associated with appreciable variation in use of urgent referrals, though these associations do not seem strong enough to justify targeted interventions.

The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives.

PURPOSE: To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments. METHODS: Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (-0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.

Long-term effect of hospital pay for performance on mortality in England.

BACKGROUND: A pay-for-performance program based on the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration was introduced in all hospitals in the northwest region of England in 2008 and was associated with a short-term (18-month) reduction in mortality. We analyzed the long-term effects of this program, called Advancing Quality. METHODS: We analyzed 30-day in-hospital mortality among 1,825,518 hospital admissions for eight conditions, three of which were covered by the financial-incentive program. The hospitals studied included the 24 hospitals in the northwest region that were participating in the program and 137 elsewhere in England that were not participating. We used difference-in-differences regression analysis to compare risk-adjusted mortality for an 18-month period before the program was introduced with subsequent mortality in the short term (the first 18 months of the program) and the longer term (the next 24 months). RESULTS: Throughout the short-term and the long-term periods, the performance of hospitals in the incentive program continued to improve and mortality for the three conditions covered by the program continued to fall. However, the reduction in mortality among patients with these conditions was greater in the control hospitals (those not participating in the program) than in the hospitals that were participating in the program (by 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3 to 1.2). By the end of the 42-month follow-up period, the reduced mortality in the participating hospitals was no longer significant (-0.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.3). From the short term to the longer term, the mortality for conditions not covered by the program fell more in the participating hospitals than in the control hospitals (by 1.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.0), raising the possibility of a positive spillover effect on care for conditions not covered by the program. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term relative reductions in mortality for conditions linked to financial incentives in hospitals participating in a pay-for-performance program in England were not maintained.

Opportunities and barriers to STI testing in community health centres in China: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: China has strengthened its primary care workforce and implemented a wide network of community health centres (CHCs). However, STI testing and management are not currently included in the 'Essential Package of Primary Health Care in China'. Legislation change to encourage STI service delivery would be important, but it is also critical to determine if there are also provider-related opportunities and barriers for implementing effective STI programmes through CHCs if future legislation were to change. METHODS: A national representative survey was conducted between September and December 2015 in a stratified random sample of 180 CHCs based in 20 cities in China. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) provided information on current experiences of STI testing as well as the barriers and facilitators for STI testing in CHCs. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to determine factors associated with PCPs performing STI testing. RESULTS: 3580 out of 4146 (86%) invited PCPs from 158 CHCs completed the survey. The majority (85%, 95% CI 84% to 87%) of doctors stated that STI testing was an important part of healthcare. However, less than a third (29%, 95% CI 27% to 31%) would perform an STI test if the patients asked. Barriers for performing STI testing included lack of training, concerns about reimbursement, concerns about damage to clinics' reputations and the stigma against key populations. Respondents who reported that they would perform an STI test were likely to be younger, received a bachelor degree or higher, received specific training in STIs, believed that STI test was an important part of healthcare or had resources to perform STI testing. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for improving STI management in China through upskilling the primary care workforce in CHCs. Specific training in STIs is needed, and other structural, logistical and attitudinal barriers are needed to be addressed.

Bridging the Gaps Between Patients and Primary Care in China: A Nationwide Representative Survey.

PURPOSE: China introduced a national policy of developing primary care in 2009, establishing 8,669 community health centers (CHCs) by 2014 that employed more than 300,000 staff. These facilities have been underused, however, because of public mistrust of physicians and overreliance on specialist care. METHODS: We selected a stratified random sample of CHCs throughout China based on geographic distribution and urban-suburban ratios between September and December 2015. Two questionnaires, 1 for lead clinicians and 1 for primary care practitioners (PCPs), asked about the demographics of the clinic and its clinical and educational activities. Responses were obtained from 158 lead clinicians in CHCs and 3,580 PCPs (response rates of 84% and 86%, respectively). RESULTS: CHCs employed a median of 8 physicians and 13 nurses, but only one-half of physicians were registered as PCPs, and few nurses had training specifically for primary care. Although virtually all clinics were equipped with stethoscopes (98%) and sphygmomanometers (97%), only 43% had ophthalmoscopes and 64% had facilities for gynecologic examination. Clinical care was selectively skewed toward certain chronic diseases. Physicians saw a median of 12.5 patients per day. Multivariate analysis showed that more patients were seen daily by physicians in CHCs organized by private hospitals and those having pharmacists and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey confirms China's success in establishing a large, mostly young primary care workforce and providing ongoing professional training. Facilities are basic, however, with few clinics providing the comprehensive primary care required for a wide range of common physical and mental conditions. Use of CHCs by patients remains low.

Doctors' engagements with patient experience surveys in primary and secondary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience surveys are increasingly important in the measurement of, and attempts to improve, health-care quality. To date, little research has focused upon doctors' attitudes to surveys which give them personalized feedback. AIM: This paper explores doctors' perceptions of patient experience surveys in primary and secondary care settings in order to deepen understandings of how doctors view the plausibility of such surveys. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a qualitative study with doctors in two regions of England, involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with doctors working in primary care (n = 21) and secondary care (n = 20) settings. The doctors in both settings had recently received individualized feedback from patient experience surveys. FINDINGS: Doctors in both settings express strong personal commitments to incorporating patient feedback in quality improvement efforts. However, they also concurrently express strong negative views about the credibility of survey findings and patients' motivations and competence in providing feedback. Thus, individual doctors demonstrate contradictory views regarding the plausibility of patient surveys, leading to complex, varied and on balance negative engagements with patient feedback. DISCUSSION: Doctors' contradictory views towards patient experience surveys are likely to limit the impact of such surveys in quality improvement initiatives in primary and secondary care. We highlight the need for 'sensegiving' initiatives (i.e. attempts to influence perceptions by communicating particular ideas, narratives and visions) to engage with doctors regarding the plausibility of patient experience surveys. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of engaging with doctors' views about patient experience surveys when developing quality improvement initiatives.

Patients' use and views of real-time feedback technology in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in real-time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general practice. DESIGN: Exploratory randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ten general practices in south-west England and Cambridgeshire. All patients attending surgeries were eligible to provide RTF. INTERVENTION: Touch screens were installed in waiting areas for 12 weeks with practice staff responsible for encouraging patients to provide RTF. All practices received fortnightly feedback summaries. Four teams attended a facilitated reflection session. OUTCOMES: RTF 'response rates' among consulting patients were estimated, and the representativeness of touch screen users were assessed. The frequency of staff-patient interactions about RTF (direct observation) and patient views of RTF (exit survey) were summarized. Associated costs were collated. RESULTS: About 2.5% consulting patients provided RTF (range 0.7-8.0% across practices), representing a mean of 194 responses per practice. Patients aged above 65 were under-represented among touch screen users. Receptionists rarely encouraged RTF but, when this did occur, 60% patients participated. Patients were largely positive about RTF but identified some barriers. Costs per practice for the twelve-week period ranged from £1125 (unfacilitated team-level feedback) to £1887 (facilitated team ± practitioner-level feedback). The main cost was the provision of touch screens. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for RTF were lower than those of other survey modes, although the numbers of patients providing feedback to each practice were comparable to those achieved in the English national GP patient survey. More patients might engage with RTF if the opportunity were consistently highlighted to them.

Moral Distress Amongst American Physician Trainees Regarding Futile Treatments at the End of Life: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Ethical challenges are common in end of life care; the uncertainty of prognosis and the ethically permissible boundaries of treatment create confusion and conflict about the balance between benefits and burdens experienced by patients. OBJECTIVE: We asked physician trainees in internal medicine how they reacted and responded to ethical challenges arising in the context of perceived futile treatments at the end of life and how these challenges contribute to moral distress. DESIGN: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two internal medicine residents and fellows across three American academic medical centers. APPROACH: This study uses systematic qualitative methods of data gathering, analysis and interpretation. KEY RESULTS: Physician trainees experienced significant moral distress when they felt obligated to provide treatments at or near the end of life that they believed to be futile. Some trainees developed detached and dehumanizing attitudes towards patients as a coping mechanism, which may contribute to a loss of empathy. Successful coping strategies included formal and informal conversations with colleagues and superiors about the emotional and ethical challenges of providing care at the end of life. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress amongst physician trainees may occur when they feel obligated to provide treatments at the end of life that they believe to be futile or harmful.

Awareness of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms: cross-sectional community survey in post-conflict northern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Lack of awareness of risk factors and symptoms for cancer may lead to late diagnosis and poor prognosis. OBJECTIVE: We assessed community awareness about cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms and perceptions about prevention and cure of cervical cancer in order to contribute data to inform interventions to improve cervical cancer survival. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted this study in Gulu, a post-conflict district in Uganda in 2012. The sample included 448 persons aged 18 years and above, selected through a multi-stage stratified cluster sampling process. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We collected data using a pretested structured questionnaire. Logistic regressions were used to determine magnitudes of associations between socio-demographic and outcome variables. RESULTS: Most participants (444/448) had heard about cervical cancer. Known risk factors including multiple sexual partners, human papillomavirus infection, and early onset of sexual activity, were recognized by 88%, 82%, and 78% of respondents respectively. 63% of participants believed that prolonged use of family planning pills and injections caused cervical cancer. The majority of participants recognized symptoms of cervical cancer including inter-menstrual bleeding (85%), post-menopausal bleeding (84%), and offensive vaginal discharge (83%). 70% of participants believed that cervical cancer is preventable and 92% believed that it could be cured if diagnosed at an early stage. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms was high among study participants. Targeted interventions including increasing availability of HPV vaccination, population-based cervical screening and diagnostic services can translate high awareness into actual benefits.

Referral management centres as a means of reducing outpatients attendances: how do they work and what influences successful implementation and perceived effectiveness?

BACKGROUND: The rising volume of referrals to secondary care is a continuing concern in the NHS in England, with considerable resource implications. Referral management centres (RMCs) are one of a range of initiatives brought in to curtail this rise, but there is currently limited evidence for their effectiveness, and little is known about their mechanisms of action. This study aimed to gain a better understanding of how RMCs operate and the factors contributing to the achievement of their goals. Drawing on the principles of realist evaluation, we sought to elicit programme theories (the ideas and assumptions about how a programme works) and to identify the key issues to be considered when establishing or evaluating such schemes. METHODS: Qualitative study with a purposive sample of health professionals and managers involved in the commissioning, set-up and running of four referral management centres in England and with GPs referring through these centres. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Interview data highlighted the diverse aims and functions of RMCs, reflecting a range of underlying programme theories. These included the overarching theory that RMCs work by ensuring the best use of limited resources and three sub-theories, relating to how this could be achieved, namely, improving the quality of referrals and patient care, reducing referrals, and increasing efficiency in the referral process. The aims of the schemes, however, varied between sites and between stakeholders, and evolved significantly over time. Three themes were identified relating to the context in which RMCs were implemented and managed: the impact of practical and administrative difficulties; the importance and challenge of stakeholder buy-in; and the dependence of perceived effectiveness on the aims and priorities of the scheme. Many RMCs were described as successful by those involved, despite limited evidence of reduced referrals or cost-savings. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study have a number of implications for the development of similar schemes, with respect to the need to ensure clarity of aims and to identify indicators of success from the outset, to anticipate scheme evolution and plan for potential changes with respect to IT systems and referral processes. Also identified, is the need for further research that evaluates the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of particular models of RMC.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise­from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists­has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care­its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families­are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Reduced mortality with hospital pay for performance in England.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance programs are being adopted internationally despite little evidence that they improve patient outcomes. In 2008, a program called Advancing Quality, based on the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration in the United States, was introduced in all National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the northwest region of England (population, 6.8 million). METHODS: We analyzed 30-day in-hospital mortality among 134,435 patients admitted for pneumonia, heart failure, or acute myocardial infarction to 24 hospitals covered by the pay-for-performance program. We used difference-in-differences regression analysis to compare mortality 18 months before and 18 months after the introduction of the program with mortality in two comparators: 722,139 patients admitted for the same three conditions to the 132 other hospitals in England and 241,009 patients admitted for six other conditions to both groups of hospitals. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted, absolute mortality for the conditions included in the pay-for-performance program decreased significantly, with an absolute reduction of 1.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 2.1; P=0.006) and a relative reduction of 6%, equivalent to 890 fewer deaths (95% CI, 260 to 1500) during the 18-month period. The largest reduction, for pneumonia, was significant (1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.0; P<0.001), with nonsignificant reductions for acute myocardial infarction (0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.4 to 1.7; P=0.23) and heart failure (0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.8; P=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of pay for performance in all NHS hospitals in one region of England was associated with a clinically significant reduction in mortality. As compared with a similar U.S. program, the U.K. program had larger bonuses and a greater investment by hospitals in quality-improvement activities. Further research is needed on how implementation of pay-for-performance programs influences their effects. (Funded by the NHS National Institute for Health Research.).

Evaluating Differential Item Functioning in the English General Practice Patient Survey: Comparison of South Asian and White British Subgroups.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate two 5-item patient experience scales from the English General Practice (GP) Patient Survey for evidence of differential item functioning (DIF) given prior evidence of substantially worse reported health care experiences for South Asian compared with white British respondents. SETTING: A national survey of English patients' primary care experiences. METHOD: We used classic test and item response theory analysis to examine the possibility of DIF by patient ethnicity (South Asian, white British) after controlling for age, sex, health status, and quality of life in the English GP Patient Survey conducted in 2011/2012. RESULTS: Data were available for 873,051 respondents (818,219 white British/54,832 South Asian from 7795 English practices) who answered items relating to experiences of GP or nurses' care. Internal consistency reliability was high and similar for South Asian and white British patients. White British patients reported better average experiences than South Asians, but there was no evidence of DIF or different item response curves for white British and South Asian respondents, even in sensitivity analyses using matched samples. CONCLUSIONS: All communication items in the English GP Patient Survey showed similar South Asian versus white British differences, with no evidence of DIF. In contrast, differences due to scale use or expectations are typically variable rather than constant across scales. While other possibilities remain, these findings increase the likelihood that the observed negative responses of South Asian patients to this national survey reflect true differences in their experiences of care.

Sexual minorities in England have poorer health and worse health care experiences: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: The health and healthcare of sexual minorities have recently been identified as priorities for health research and policy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the health and healthcare experiences of sexual minorities with heterosexual people of the same gender, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. DESIGN: Multivariate analyses of observational data from the 2009/2010 English General Practice Patient Survey. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was mailed to 5.56 million randomly sampled adults registered with a National Health Service general practice (representing 99 % of England's adult population). In all, 2,169,718 people responded (39 % response rate), including 27,497 people who described themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. MAIN MEASURES: Two measures of health status (fair/poor overall self-rated health and self-reported presence of a longstanding psychological condition) and four measures of poor patient experiences (no trust or confidence in the doctor, poor/very poor doctor communication, poor/very poor nurse communication, fairly/very dissatisfied with care overall). KEY RESULTS: Sexual minorities were two to three times more likely to report having a longstanding psychological or emotional problem than heterosexual counterparts (age-adjusted for 5.2 % heterosexual, 10.9 % gay, 15.0 % bisexual for men; 6.0 % heterosexual, 12.3 % lesbian and 18.8 % bisexual for women; p < 0.001 for each). Sexual minorities were also more likely to report fair/poor health (adjusted 19.6 % heterosexual, 21.8 % gay, 26.4 % bisexual for men; 20.5 % heterosexual, 24.9 % lesbian and 31.6 % bisexual for women; p < 0.001 for each). Adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, sexual minorities were about one and one-half times more likely than heterosexual people to report unfavorable experiences with each of four aspects of primary care. Little of the overall disparity reflected concentration of sexual minorities in low-performing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual minorities suffer both poorer health and worse healthcare experiences. Efforts should be made to recognize the needs and improve the experiences of sexual minorities. Examining patient experience disparities by sexual orientation can inform such efforts.