Lorna E Clarson, Barbara I Nicholl, Annette Bishop, John Edwards, Rebecca Daniel, Christian Mallen
{"title":"骨关节炎是否应该有一个质量和结果框架领域?全科医学中的横断面调查","authors":"Lorna E Clarson, Barbara I Nicholl, Annette Bishop, John Edwards, Rebecca Daniel, Christian Mallen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite being a chronic condition with a high prevalence and significant associated morbidity that is managed predominantly in primary care, osteoarthritis (OA) does not feature in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) component of the UK general practice contract. The aim of this study was to determine whether general practitioners (GPs) thought OA should be added as a QOF domain, and the potential items for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional postal survey of 2500 UK GPs randomly selected from Binley's database of currently practising GPs was conducted. The survey asked if OA should be added as a domain to QOF, how many points should be allocated to it and what indicators should be included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 768 GPs, of whom 70.4% were male and 89.1% were partners in their practice. The majority (82.6%; n = 602) felt that OA should not be included as a QOF domain. Significant predictors of support for the addition of an OA domain to QOF included having a special interest in musculoskeletal disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-3.03), a higher research degree (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.31-12.10) and having read the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on the management of OA (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.54). Being a GP principal was the only negative association (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99). Preferred potential indicators for an OA QOF were analgesia review, exercise advice and patient education.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of respondents felt that OA should not be included as a QOF domain, although it is unclear whether this reflected views particular to OA, or on the addition of any new domain to QOF. Those supporting an OA QOF domain tended to prefer potential indicators that are in line with current published guidance, despite a significant proportion reporting that they had not read the NICE guidelines on the management of OA.</p>","PeriodicalId":88096,"journal":{"name":"Quality in primary care","volume":"21 2","pages":"97-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should there be a Quality and Outcomes Framework domain for osteoarthritis? A cross-sectional survey in general practice.\",\"authors\":\"Lorna E Clarson, Barbara I Nicholl, Annette Bishop, John Edwards, Rebecca Daniel, Christian Mallen\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite being a chronic condition with a high prevalence and significant associated morbidity that is managed predominantly in primary care, osteoarthritis (OA) does not feature in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) component of the UK general practice contract. The aim of this study was to determine whether general practitioners (GPs) thought OA should be added as a QOF domain, and the potential items for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional postal survey of 2500 UK GPs randomly selected from Binley's database of currently practising GPs was conducted. The survey asked if OA should be added as a domain to QOF, how many points should be allocated to it and what indicators should be included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 768 GPs, of whom 70.4% were male and 89.1% were partners in their practice. The majority (82.6%; n = 602) felt that OA should not be included as a QOF domain. Significant predictors of support for the addition of an OA domain to QOF included having a special interest in musculoskeletal disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-3.03), a higher research degree (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.31-12.10) and having read the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on the management of OA (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.54). Being a GP principal was the only negative association (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99). Preferred potential indicators for an OA QOF were analgesia review, exercise advice and patient education.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of respondents felt that OA should not be included as a QOF domain, although it is unclear whether this reflected views particular to OA, or on the addition of any new domain to QOF. Those supporting an OA QOF domain tended to prefer potential indicators that are in line with current published guidance, despite a significant proportion reporting that they had not read the NICE guidelines on the management of OA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in primary care\",\"volume\":\"21 2\",\"pages\":\"97-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:尽管骨关节炎(OA)是一种高患病率和显著相关发病率的慢性疾病，主要在初级保健中进行管理，但在英国全科医生合同的质量和结果框架(QOF)部分中并未出现。本研究的目的是确定全科医生(gp)是否认为OA应该被添加为QOF领域，以及潜在的纳入项目。方法:对从Binley目前执业全科医生数据库中随机抽取的2500名英国全科医生进行横断面邮政调查。该调查询问了是否应该将OA作为QOF的一个领域，应该分配多少分以及应该包括哪些指标。结果:共收到768名全科医生的回复，其中70.4%为男性，89.1%为执业伴侣。大多数人(82.6%;n = 602)认为OA不应被纳入QOF域。支持在QOF中加入OA域的重要预测因子包括对肌肉骨骼疾病有特殊兴趣(比值比[OR] 1.95, 95%置信区间[CI] 1.26-3.03)，较高的研究学位(OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.31-12.10)，以及阅读过国家健康与临床卓越研究所(NICE)关于OA管理的指南(OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.54)。作为GP校长是唯一的负相关(OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99)。OA QOF的首选潜在指标是镇痛回顾、运动建议和患者教育。结论:大多数受访者认为OA不应该被纳入QOF领域，尽管尚不清楚这是否反映了OA的特定观点，还是对QOF添加任何新领域的看法。那些支持OA QOF领域的人倾向于选择与当前出版的指南一致的潜在指标，尽管有很大比例的人报告说他们没有阅读NICE关于OA管理的指南。
Should there be a Quality and Outcomes Framework domain for osteoarthritis? A cross-sectional survey in general practice.
Background: Despite being a chronic condition with a high prevalence and significant associated morbidity that is managed predominantly in primary care, osteoarthritis (OA) does not feature in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) component of the UK general practice contract. The aim of this study was to determine whether general practitioners (GPs) thought OA should be added as a QOF domain, and the potential items for inclusion.
Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of 2500 UK GPs randomly selected from Binley's database of currently practising GPs was conducted. The survey asked if OA should be added as a domain to QOF, how many points should be allocated to it and what indicators should be included.
Results: Responses were received from 768 GPs, of whom 70.4% were male and 89.1% were partners in their practice. The majority (82.6%; n = 602) felt that OA should not be included as a QOF domain. Significant predictors of support for the addition of an OA domain to QOF included having a special interest in musculoskeletal disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-3.03), a higher research degree (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.31-12.10) and having read the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on the management of OA (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.54). Being a GP principal was the only negative association (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99). Preferred potential indicators for an OA QOF were analgesia review, exercise advice and patient education.
Conclusions: The majority of respondents felt that OA should not be included as a QOF domain, although it is unclear whether this reflected views particular to OA, or on the addition of any new domain to QOF. Those supporting an OA QOF domain tended to prefer potential indicators that are in line with current published guidance, despite a significant proportion reporting that they had not read the NICE guidelines on the management of OA.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
