Monthly Archives: November 2014

Conference report: NAPCRG (North American Primary Care Research Group) Annual Meeting 2014

What were the highlights of the US meeting this year? Apart from cake for breakfast, much was going on as primary care researchers gathered in Times Square from across the world…conference report here

Posted in Blog | Tagged | Group: | Comments closed

Multi-morbidity and the Emperor’s New Clothes: a challenge for primary care researchers

Are single disease guidelines and indicators are going out of fashion? Well they are with people interested in multi-morbidity. The argument is straightforward. Single disease guidelines are usually based on trials which exclude people with multiple complex problems. So how does the physician know how a cholesterol guideline developed from trials on 65 year old …read more

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , | Group: | Comments closed

The economics won’t go away: NHS Cancer Drugs Fund to consider cost-effectiveness

This week, NHS England published its revised process for operation of the cancer drugs fund.  Of particular interest is the requirement to take into account both costs and effects of treatments. NICE was set up in 1999 with the remit of considering the value for money, or cost-effectiveness of new and existing treatments. It is …read more

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

So does QOF really reduce emergency hospital admissions?

What should you make of our latest paper suggesting that QOF reduced emergency admissions? There have now been over 20 systematic reviews of pay for performance (P4P) and even a systematic review of systematic reviews. A reasonable summary would be that P4P seems to improve the processes of care somewhat (and with the potential for …read more

Posted in Blog | Tagged , | Group: | Comments closed

When does a ‘poor’ practice mean a ‘poor’ doctor?

This was the title of our paper published today in the BMJ when we first submitted it to the journal. However, the BMJ doesn’t allow questions as titles so it became the less sensationalist “Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients’ survey data for general practices and individual doctors”. …read more

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments closed

When incentives go wrong – £55 for dementia diagnosis is a dead cert.

People argue a lot about whether it’s a good idea to give financial incentives to doctors to provide good care. There’s an argument that you should when it costs more to provide that care. Then there’s the more contentious issue of whether a cash incentive is a useful addition. The evidence is that incentives do …read more

Posted in Blog | Tagged , | Group: | Comments closed

Are patient experience surveys for quality assurance or quality improvement?

Patient experience surveys in primary care carry an expectation that they will stimulate change. Our focus group study in 14 practices explores why practice staff struggle to identify and action improvements as a result of patient feedback alone.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , | Group: | Comments closed
  • The Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research (CCHSR) is a thriving collaboration between the University of Cambridge and RAND Europe. We aim to inform health policy and practice by conducting research and evaluation studies of organisation and delivery of healthcare, including safety, effectiveness, efficiency and patient experience.