The Relationship Between Social Deprivation and the Quality of Primary Care: a National Survey Using Indicators from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework
Overview
Affiliations
Background: The existence of health inequalities between least and most socially deprived areas is now well established.
Aim: To use Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators to explore the characteristics of primary care in deprived communities.
Design Of Study: Two-year study.
Setting: Primary care in England.
Method: QOF data were obtained for each practice in England in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and linked with census derived social deprivation data (Index of Multiple Deprivation scores 2004), national urbanicity scores and a database of practice characteristics. Data were available for 8480 practices in 2004-2005 and 8264 practices in 2005-2006. Comparisons were made between practices in the least and most deprived quintiles.
Results: The difference in mean total QOF score between practices in least and most deprived quintiles was 64.5 points in 2004-2005 (mean score, all practices, 959.9) and 30.4 in 2005-2006 (mean, 1012.6). In 2005-2006, the QOF indicators displaying the largest differences between least and most deprived quintiles were: recall of patients not attending appointments for injectable neuroleptics (79 versus 58%, respectively), practices opening > or =45 hours/week (90 versus 74%), practices conducting > or = 12 significant event audits in previous 3 years (93 versus 81%), proportion of epileptics who were seizure free > or = 12 months (77 versus 65%) and proportion of patients taking lithium with serum lithium within therapeutic range (90 versus 78%). Geographical differences were less in group and training practices.
Conclusions: Overall differences between primary care quality indicators in deprived and prosperous communities were small. However, shortfalls in specific indicators, both clinical and non-clinical, suggest that focused interventions could be applied to improve the quality of primary care in deprived areas.
Pradhan R, Lord J, Orewa G, Davlyatov G, Weech-Maldonado R Innov Aging. 2025; 9(2):igaf004.
PMID: 39963524 PMC: 11831227. DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igaf004.
Mann O, Bracegirdle T, Shantikumar S BJGP Open. 2023; 7(4).
PMID: 37562823 PMC: 11176694. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0024.
Pereira A, Biscaia A, Calado I, Freitas A, Costa A, Coelho A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(22).
PMID: 36429538 PMC: 9690059. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192214819.
The public health impact of loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Allen J, Darlington O, Hughes K, Bellis M BMC Public Health. 2022; 22(1):1654.
PMID: 36045422 PMC: 9433133. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14055-2.
van Bodegraven B, Palin V, Mistry C, Sperrin M, White A, Welfare W BMJ Open. 2021; 11(1):e041218.
PMID: 33452190 PMC: 7813359. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041218.