Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Poster Presentations

Achieving better quality care in general practice: are incentives the answer?

Kanwal Ahmed, Salma Hashim, Mariyam Khankhara, Ilhan Said, Amrita Shandakumar, Sadia Zaman and Andre Veiga
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (suppl 1): bjgp20X711461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X711461
Kanwal Ahmed
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Salma Hashim
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mariyam Khankhara
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ilhan Said
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amrita Shandakumar
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sadia Zaman
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andre Veiga
Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
Loading

Abstract

Background The introduction of financial incentives, such as the quality and outcomes framework (QOF), historically lead to improvements in standardising practice. However, with shifting demands on healthcare providers, are these schemes still enough to drive high-quality care?

Aim To explore current incentives, intrinsic and extrinsic, their role and effectiveness in improving quality of care and how they are perceived by GPs.

Method Mixed methods study using two systematic literature reviews including 44 papers and 18 semi-structured interviews with GPs.

Results In the literature, QOF was associated with reduced socioeconomic inequalities, decreased mortality and improved outcomes. However, the absence of control groups and the simultaneous analysis of multiple indicators complicates the findings. GPs agreed with the literature and viewed financial incentives as beneficial, however, they felt the key driver in providing good-quality care was their intrinsic motivation. Financial incentives were found to contribute to depersonalised care, diluted provision of non-incentivised activities and hindered overall practice. The results from the second literature review were in keeping with the views of the participants. They illustrated the importance of managing factors contributing to physician burnout, reduced performance, and low job satisfaction, which can result in the provision of low-quality care.

Conclusion Financial incentives have the potential to induce behaviour change, however, their use in quality improvement is limited when used alone. If used in an environment that nurtures intrinsic motivation, healthcare providers will be more driven to achieve a higher quality of care and will be better able to cope with shifting demands.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (suppl 1)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue suppl 1
June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Achieving better quality care in general practice: are incentives the answer?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Achieving better quality care in general practice: are incentives the answer?
Kanwal Ahmed, Salma Hashim, Mariyam Khankhara, Ilhan Said, Amrita Shandakumar, Sadia Zaman, Andre Veiga
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (suppl 1): bjgp20X711461. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X711461

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Achieving better quality care in general practice: are incentives the answer?
Kanwal Ahmed, Salma Hashim, Mariyam Khankhara, Ilhan Said, Amrita Shandakumar, Sadia Zaman, Andre Veiga
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (suppl 1): bjgp20X711461. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X711461
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters

More in this TOC Section

  • A scoping review of community holistic interventions for older people with multimorbidity
  • Blood tests in general practice: the use of routine data to characterise venous blood testing in North West London, 2016–2018
Show more Poster presentations

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

Tweets by @BJGPjournal

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242