↓ 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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
65 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
2 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 65 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 50%
Unspecified 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#139,468
of 8,529,445 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#55
of 1,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,340
of 152,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,529,445 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 1,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 152,455 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 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.