Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study.

Medical care research and review : MCRR Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-29 DOI:10.1177/10775587211035280
Esmaeil Khedmati Morasae, Tanith C Rose, Mark Gabbay, Laura Buckels, Colette Morris, Sharon Poll, Mark Goodall, Rob Barnett, Ben Barr
{"title":"Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study.","authors":"Esmaeil Khedmati Morasae,&nbsp;Tanith C Rose,&nbsp;Mark Gabbay,&nbsp;Laura Buckels,&nbsp;Colette Morris,&nbsp;Sharon Poll,&nbsp;Mark Goodall,&nbsp;Rob Barnett,&nbsp;Ben Barr","doi":"10.1177/10775587211035280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.</p>","PeriodicalId":169610,"journal":{"name":"Medical care research and review : MCRR","volume":" ","pages":"394-403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10775587211035280","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical care research and review : MCRR","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587211035280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估地方初级保健激励计划的有效性:一项差异中的差异研究。
提高初级保健质量的国家财政激励计划在英国受到批评,导致人们呼吁采取本地化的替代方案。本研究调查了2011年在英格兰西北部一个城市启动的基于激励的当地全科医生质量改进计划是否与全因急诊住院率的降低有关。采用差异中差异分析来比较干预城市急诊入院率的变化与匹配比较人群的变化。在干预后的几年中,与对照人群相比,干预城市的急诊入院率下降了19 / 1000(95%置信区间[17,21])。这种影响在弱势群体中更大,缩小了急诊入院时的社会经济不平等。研究结果表明,类似的方法可能是减少其他地方计划外住院的有效策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信