Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Jun;57(539):441-8.

The relationship between social deprivation and the quality of primary care: a national survey using indicators from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework

Affiliations
Comparative Study

The relationship between social deprivation and the quality of primary care: a national survey using indicators from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework

Mark Ashworth et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2007 Jun.

Abstract

Background: The existence of health inequalities between least and most socially deprived areas is now well established.

Aim: To use Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators to explore the characteristics of primary care in deprived communities.

Design of study: Two-year study.

Setting: Primary care in England.

Method: QOF data were obtained for each practice in England in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and linked with census derived social deprivation data (Index of Multiple Deprivation scores 2004), national urbanicity scores and a database of practice characteristics. Data were available for 8480 practices in 2004-2005 and 8264 practices in 2005-2006. Comparisons were made between practices in the least and most deprived quintiles.

Results: The difference in mean total QOF score between practices in least and most deprived quintiles was 64.5 points in 2004-2005 (mean score, all practices, 959.9) and 30.4 in 2005-2006 (mean, 1012.6). In 2005-2006, the QOF indicators displaying the largest differences between least and most deprived quintiles were: recall of patients not attending appointments for injectable neuroleptics (79 versus 58%, respectively), practices opening > or =45 hours/week (90 versus 74%), practices conducting > or = 12 significant event audits in previous 3 years (93 versus 81%), proportion of epileptics who were seizure free > or = 12 months (77 versus 65%) and proportion of patients taking lithium with serum lithium within therapeutic range (90 versus 78%). Geographical differences were less in group and training practices.

Conclusions: Overall differences between primary care quality indicators in deprived and prosperous communities were small. However, shortfalls in specific indicators, both clinical and non-clinical, suggest that focused interventions could be applied to improve the quality of primary care in deprived areas.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relationship between total Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) 2005–2006 scores and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD-2004) scores. Note: vertical lines represent cut-off points for each quintile of deprivation

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Seddon ME, Marshall MN, Campbell SM, Roland MO. Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:152–158. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gervas J, Perez Fernandez M, Starfield BH. Primary care, financing and gatekeeping in western Europe. Fam Pract. 1994;11:307–317. - PubMed
    1. Tudor Hart J. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971;1:405–412. - PubMed
    1. Roland M. Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care — a major experiment in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1448–1454. - PubMed
    1. Wright J, Martin D, Cockings S, Polack C. Overall quality of outcomes framework scores lower in practices in deprived areas. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:277–279. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms