The role of the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the care of long-term conditions: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundImproving care for people with long-term conditions is central to NHS policy. It has been suggested that the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a primary care pay-for-performance scheme that rewards practices for delivering effective interventions in long-term conditions, does not encourage high-quality care for this group of patients.AimTo examine the evidence that the QOF has improved quality of care for patients with long-term conditions.Design and settingThis was a systematic review of research on the effectiveness of the QOF in the UK.MethodThe authors searched electronic databases for peer-reviewed empirical quantitative research studying the effect of the QOF on a broad range of processes and outcomes of care, including coordination and integration of care, holistic and personalised care, self-care, patient experience, physiological and biochemical outcomes, health service utilisation, and mortality. Because the studies were heterogeneous, a narrative synthesis was carried out.ResultsThe authors identified three systematic reviews and five primary research studies that met the inclusion criteria. The QOF was associated with a modest slowing of both the increase in emergency admissions and the increase in consultations in severe mental illness (SMI), and modest improvements in diabetes care. The nature of the evidence means that the authors cannot be sure that any of these associations is causal. No clear effect on mortality was found. The authors found no evidence that the QOF influences integration or coordination of care, holistic care, self-care, or patient experience.ConclusionThe NHS should consider more broadly what constitutes high-quality primary care for people with long-term conditions, and consider other ways of motivating primary care to deliver it.