1 / 28

GMS Formula Analysis QRESEARCH 2005

GMS Formula Analysis QRESEARCH 2005. 09 Feb 2006 Julia Hippisley-Cox Jon Ford Ian Trimble. Aims of presentation. Brief overview of methods Present key results from analysis Comparison of models Hand over to Jon Ford. Overall aim of the analysis.

oria
Download Presentation

GMS Formula Analysis QRESEARCH 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. GMS Formula AnalysisQRESEARCH 2005 • 09 Feb 2006 • Julia Hippisley-Cox • Jon Ford • Ian Trimble

  2. Aims of presentation • Brief overview of methods • Present key results from analysis • Comparison of models • Hand over to Jon Ford

  3. Overall aim of the analysis • To derive a regression model linking workload to patient and practice characteristics • To inform revision of the funding formula for essential and additional services

  4. Sampling: Practices • Practice inclusion criteria for analysis • England and Wales only • At least 1000 patients • At least 2 consultations/person-year • Complete data for period in question • Decided not to sample proportionately by region

  5. Patient inclusion criteria • Patient level analysis • Study period 01 April 2003- 31 March 2004 • Included if registered at any point during study period • Included temporary residents, new patients and patients who died • Person days denominator for rates

  6. Principal outcome • Number of consultations (GP + nurse) in study year • Regardless of setting • Excluding community/district nurses

  7. Patient level variables • Sex • Ageband: standard as in Carr Hill • Registration period (6+ months; <6 or new) • Temporary patients (yes/no) • New GMS diseases (yes/no for each) • Townsend score/IMDS • % white/non white

  8. Practice level variables • List size • Number of GP principals • Townsend score • Rurality • White/non white • Mean prevalence of QOF diseases • Region

  9. Patient level analysis • Variables included at patient or at practice level • Both person years and registered population were used

  10. QRESEARCH practices • Compared with UK average • Similar size • Similar distribution • Similar prevalence • Similar age-sex • Comparable consultation rate • LARGE Representative sample • Results generalisable

  11. Results: study practices • 454 practices in England and Wales • 3.8 million patients registered at any point in study year • 33,727 deaths • 319,435 new patients • 97,239 temporary residents

  12. Summary of comparison • QRESEARCH practices • Slightly bigger • More in East Midlands and fewer in London • Otherwise similar w.r.t. age-sex and disease prevalence

  13. Prevalence of diabetes in patients over 15

  14. Consultation rates by age and sex

  15. Models • We fitted a series of ‘a priori’ statistical models specified in our protocol and then were asked to fit additional ones • ‘a priori’ models included patient level assigned data where available (eg QOF diseases, Townsend score) • Supplementary models included practice level data (QOF disease prevalence, mean Townsend score)

  16. Results: A priori Model 7bi(person years denominator) • Consultation rates: • Registered for 6+ months = baseline • Registered for < 6 months = 72% higher rate • Temporary residents = 86% higher rate • Person years controls for length of registration period • patients registered within 6 months before start of study year or during study year have a 72% higher consultation rate compared to long standing patients

  17. A priori model: Townsend score • Fairly flat gradient with deprivation • (Quintile 5 is deprived) • Quintile 1 = baseline • Quintile 2 = 0.4% higher • Quintile 3 = 1.4% higher • Quintile 4 = 4.1% higher • Quintile 5 = 6.1% higher

  18. A priori model:Rurality and ethnicity • Urban areas = baseline • Rural areas = 1.7% higher • Ethnicity: • 99-100% white = baseline • 97-98.9% white = 0.5% lower • 90-96.9% white = 4.1% lower • < 90% white = 11.6% lower

  19. A priori model: QOF diseases • For all diseases, people with the disease • had higher consultation rates compared • to those without the disease • e.g. • CHD = 38% higher • Diabetes = 54% higher • Asthma = 63% higher

  20. A priori model: practice variables • List size: • 2.2% lower rate for each additional • thousand patients for a given number • of GP principals • GP principals (head count not wte) • 1.4% higher rates for each additional • GP principal for a given list size

  21. Process • Undertook patient level modelling • Then asked to do practice level modelling for implementation • Concerns about how well practice level models can be applied at patient level • Results were counter-intuitive (Ecological fallacy)

  22. Ecological fallacy • Applying practice level variables to a patient population produces spurious and counter-intuitive results • Well described statistical phenomenon • Practice level models don’t work

  23. Additional model : (practice level data) • Inclusion of all QOF disease prevalence • values together in models showed some • negative associations: • e.g. CHD = 4.7% lower rate • Thyroid disease = 1.1% lower rate • both for a 1% increase in practice • prevalence.

  24. Additional model: Townsend score • Inclusion of mean practice Townsend • score showed a negative association: • Consultation rates were 2.9% lower for • a 1 unit increase in mean practice • Townsend score

  25. FRG review • Requested additional patient level model WITHOUT prevalence (model 18) • Key comparison then is patient level with and without prevalence

  26. Explanatory powerAkaike Information criterion • AIC statistical test for explanatory power • Lower values indicator better models • Absolute value increases with sample size • Relative difference more important

  27. AIC results • Both models patient level, person years denominator, age-sex, rurality, ethnicity • Model 7b AIC = 16,415,351 • Townsend quintile • Prevalence • No region • Model 18 AIC = 16,763,190 • Townsend continuous • No prevalence • Region

  28. Summary • Person years adjustment give better fit for new registrations/TRs • Patient level analyses produce intuitively acceptable results • Practice level analyses counter-intuitive results likely to lead to controversy (ecological fallacy) • Comparisons between patient level models with and with and without prevalence are presented for Plenary’s consideration

More Related