↓ Skip to main content

Impact of primary care funding on secondary care utilisation and patient outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practice

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
68 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Impact of primary care funding on secondary care utilisation and patient outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practice
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, September 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x693101
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veline L’Esperance, Matt Sutton, Peter Schofield, Thomas Round, Umer Malik, Patrick White, Mark Ashworth

Abstract

In international studies, greater investment in primary health care is associated with improved population health outcomes. To determine whether investment in general practice is associated with secondary care utilisation, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. Retrospective cross-sectional study of general practices in England, 2014-2015. Practice-level data were stratified into three groups according to GP contract type: national General Medical Services (GMS) contracts, with or without the capitation supplement (mean practice income guarantee), or local Personal Medical Services (PMS) contracts. Regression models were used to explore associations between practice funding (capitation payments and capitation supplements) and secondary care usage, patient satisfaction (general practice patient survey scores), and clinical outcomes (Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF] scores). The authors conducted financial modelling to predict secondary care cost savings associated with notional changes in primary care funding. Mean capitation payments per patient were £69.82 in GMS practices in receipt of capitation supplements (n = 2784), £78.79 in GMS practices without capitation supplements (n = 1672), and £84.43 in PMS practices (n = 3022). The mean capitation supplement was £5.72 per patient. Financial modelling demonstrated little or no relationship between capitation payments and secondary care costs. In contrast, notional investment in capitation supplements was associated with modelled savings in secondary care costs. The relationship between funding and patient satisfaction was inconsistent. QOF performance was not associated with funding in any practice type. Capitation payments appear to be broadly aligned to patient need in terms of secondary care usage. Supplements to the current capitation formula are associated with reduced secondary care costs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 17%
Unknown 5 83%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 5 83%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2017.
All research outputs
#179,369
of 11,341,533 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#71
of 2,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,127
of 261,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#9
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,341,533 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.