Back

The primary care annual dementia review: a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users and providers

Wheatley, A.; Brunskill, G.; Dow, J.; Bamford, C.; Poole, M.; Robinson, L.; the PriDem study team,

2022-04-28 primary care research
10.1101/2022.04.26.22274255 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIn England and Wales, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) financially rewards GP practices for long-term conditions management, including completion of annual dementia reviews. There is limited evidence about how this works in practice and whether it meets patients and carers needs. MethodsData from five qualitative datasets were integrated and analysed thematically. Data comprised interviews, focus groups, and observations with 209 participants, including commissioners, managers and frontline staff in dementia services; people with dementia; carers; and policy experts. FindingsFour main themes were developed: (i) perceived benefits of annual review; (ii) variability and (in)visibility of annual review; (iii) logistics; and (iv) external influences and constraints. Variability in both the completion and quality of QOF annual dementia reviews was attributed by some to limited nuance in the current QOF dementia indicator. Many patients and carers were unaware that an annual dementia review had occurred. Participants suggested that many GPs lack the required competencies and/or capacity for successful dementia reviews. ConclusionsWork is urgently needed to improve the quality of annual dementia reviews. Potential strategies include changing the financial reimbursement to reflect both quality and quantity, so the review is tailored to the needs of the individual and their family; the creation of standardised templates; collaborative working within primary care and across sectors; and integrating dementia reviews into other long-term conditions. Key pointsO_LIQOF annual dementia reviews are a key opportunity for providing support for people with dementia in England and Wales C_LIO_LICurrent provision of annual reviews varies both in completion rates and quality C_LIO_LIStrategies for improvement include improving quality indicators, implementing standardised templates, and improving primary care capacity and capability to carry out reviews C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.