Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Dr Andre Veiga

Business School

Assistant Professor of Economics
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 7957a.veiga Website

 
 
//

Location

 

CAGB 484Business School BuildingSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Ahmed:2021:10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127,
author = {Ahmed, K and Hashim, S and Khankhara, M and Said, I and Shandakumar, AT and Zaman, S and Veiga, AF},
doi = {10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127},
journal = {BMJ Open Quality},
title = {What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127},
volume = {10},
year = {2021}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background  In the United Kingdom the NHS 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. Objectives1.To explore current incentive schemes available in general practice in the UK, their impact and effectiveness in improving quality of care.2. To identify other types of incentives discussed in the literatureMethodsThis SLR was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane, PubMed, NICE Evidence, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Embase and Health Management. Articles were screened according to the selection criteria, evaluated against critical appraisal checklists and categorised into themes. Results35 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. DiscussionThe majority of the literature focused on QOF. Its positive effects included reduced mortality rates, better data recording and improved socio-demographic 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. Conclusion 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.
AU  - Ahmed,K
AU  - Hashim,S
AU  - Khankhara,M
AU  - Said,I
AU  - Shandakumar,AT
AU  - Zaman,S
AU  - Veiga,AF
DO  - 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127
PY  - 2021///
SN  - 2399-6641
TI  - What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
T2  - BMJ Open Quality
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001127
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/87157
VL  - 10
ER  -
Download