The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Funding and policy incentives to encourage implementation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection in NHS primary care: a mixed-methods evaluation

Funding and policy incentives to encourage implementation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection in NHS primary care: a mixed-methods evaluation
Funding and policy incentives to encourage implementation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection in NHS primary care: a mixed-methods evaluation
Objectives: Utilisation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection has been limited in UK primary care, with costs and funding suggested as important barriers. We aimed to use existing National Health Service funding and policy mechanisms to alleviate these barriers and engage with clinicians and healthcare commissioners to encourage implementation.

Design: A mixed-methods study design was adopted, including a qualitative survey to identify clinicians’ and commissioners’ perceived benefits, barriers and enablers post-implementation, and quantitative analysis of results from a real-world implementation study.

Interventions: We developed a funding specification to underpin local reimbursement of general practices for test delivery based on an item of service payment. We also created training and administrative materials to facilitate implementation by reducing organisational burden. The implementation study provided intervention sites with a testing device and supplies, training and practical assistance.

Results: Despite engagement with several groups, implementation and uptake of our funding specification were limited. Survey respondents confirmed costs and funding as important barriers in addition to physical and operational constraints and cited training and the value of a local champion as enablers.

Conclusions: Although survey respondents highlighted the clinical benefits, funding remains a barrier to implementation in UK primary care and appears not to be alleviated by the existing financial incentives available to commissioners. The potential to meet incentive targets using lower cost methods, a lack of policy consistency or competing financial pressures and commissioning programmes may be important determinants of local priorities. An implementation champion could help to catalyse support and overcome operational barriers at the local level, but widespread implementation is likely to require national policy change. Successful implementation may reproduce antibiotic prescribing reductions observed in research studies.
2044-6055
Johnson, Matthew James
d272ca76-f017-4457-96f5-daf6a7af6adf
Cross, Liz
6425b992-cc6c-4fbd-be12-44cf4e2ef8a8
Sandison, Nicholas
d292ec0a-b52b-4c24-a6bc-073cd5f1e338
Stevenson, Jamie
bf501dfc-a8b2-4247-a062-5e6da0b7b095
Monks, Thomas
fece343c-106d-461d-a1dd-71c1772627ca
Moore, Michael
1be81dad-7120-45f0-bbed-f3b0cc0cfe99
Johnson, Matthew James
d272ca76-f017-4457-96f5-daf6a7af6adf
Cross, Liz
6425b992-cc6c-4fbd-be12-44cf4e2ef8a8
Sandison, Nicholas
d292ec0a-b52b-4c24-a6bc-073cd5f1e338
Stevenson, Jamie
bf501dfc-a8b2-4247-a062-5e6da0b7b095
Monks, Thomas
fece343c-106d-461d-a1dd-71c1772627ca
Moore, Michael
1be81dad-7120-45f0-bbed-f3b0cc0cfe99

Johnson, Matthew James, Cross, Liz, Sandison, Nicholas, Stevenson, Jamie, Monks, Thomas and Moore, Michael (2018) Funding and policy incentives to encourage implementation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection in NHS primary care: a mixed-methods evaluation. BMJ Open, 8 (10), [e024558]. (doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024558).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objectives: Utilisation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection has been limited in UK primary care, with costs and funding suggested as important barriers. We aimed to use existing National Health Service funding and policy mechanisms to alleviate these barriers and engage with clinicians and healthcare commissioners to encourage implementation.

Design: A mixed-methods study design was adopted, including a qualitative survey to identify clinicians’ and commissioners’ perceived benefits, barriers and enablers post-implementation, and quantitative analysis of results from a real-world implementation study.

Interventions: We developed a funding specification to underpin local reimbursement of general practices for test delivery based on an item of service payment. We also created training and administrative materials to facilitate implementation by reducing organisational burden. The implementation study provided intervention sites with a testing device and supplies, training and practical assistance.

Results: Despite engagement with several groups, implementation and uptake of our funding specification were limited. Survey respondents confirmed costs and funding as important barriers in addition to physical and operational constraints and cited training and the value of a local champion as enablers.

Conclusions: Although survey respondents highlighted the clinical benefits, funding remains a barrier to implementation in UK primary care and appears not to be alleviated by the existing financial incentives available to commissioners. The potential to meet incentive targets using lower cost methods, a lack of policy consistency or competing financial pressures and commissioning programmes may be important determinants of local priorities. An implementation champion could help to catalyse support and overcome operational barriers at the local level, but widespread implementation is likely to require national policy change. Successful implementation may reproduce antibiotic prescribing reductions observed in research studies.

Text
e024558.full - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (245kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 14 September 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 25 October 2018
Published date: 26 October 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 425687
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/425687
ISSN: 2044-6055
PURE UUID: 22476630-bf80-4e4e-98a3-b87db3a50328
ORCID for Thomas Monks: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2631-4481
ORCID for Michael Moore: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5127-4509

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 31 Oct 2018 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:43

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Matthew James Johnson
Author: Liz Cross
Author: Nicholas Sandison
Author: Jamie Stevenson
Author: Thomas Monks ORCID iD
Author: Michael Moore ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×