Abstract
Background In England and Wales, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) financially rewards GP practices for long-term conditions management, including completion of annual dementia reviews. There is limited evidence about how this works in practice and whether it meets patients’ and carers’ needs.
Methods Data from five qualitative datasets were integrated and analysed thematically. Data comprised interviews, focus groups, and observations with 209 participants, including commissioners, managers and frontline staff in dementia services; people with dementia; carers; and policy experts.
Findings Four main themes were developed: (i) perceived benefits of annual review; (ii) variability and (in)visibility of annual review; (iii) logistics; and (iv) external influences and constraints.
Variability in both the completion and quality of QOF annual dementia reviews was attributed by some to limited nuance in the current QOF dementia indicator. Many patients and carers were unaware that an annual dementia review had occurred. Participants suggested that many GPs lack the required competencies and/or capacity for successful dementia reviews.
Conclusions Work is urgently needed to improve the quality of annual dementia reviews. Potential strategies include changing the financial reimbursement to reflect both quality and quantity, so the review is tailored to the needs of the individual and their family; the creation of standardised templates; collaborative working within primary care and across sectors; and integrating dementia reviews into other long-term conditions.
Key points
QOF annual dementia reviews are a key opportunity for providing support for people with dementia in England and Wales
Current provision of annual reviews varies both in completion rates and quality
Strategies for improvement include improving quality indicators, implementing standardised templates, and improving primary care capacity and capability to carry out reviews
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Alzheimer's Society Centre of Excellence [grant number 331]; and NIHR School for Primary Care Research
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
NHS Research Ethics Committee Wales 3 of the UK National Health Service gave ethical approval for this work (reference 18/WA/0349) Research Ethics Committee of Newcastle University Faculty of Medical Sciences gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
PriDem data are available upon reasonable request via
