The dynamics of quality: a national panel study of evidence-based standards

• Published in: Health services and delivery research 2015-03, Vol.3 (11), p.1-128
• Main Authors: Hardcastle, Antonia C, Mounce, Luke TA, Richards, Suzanne H, Bachmann, Max O, Clark, Allan, Henley, William E, Campbell, John L, Melzer, David, Steel, Nicholas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: cardiovascular disease; depression; diabetes; evidence-based standards; health-care quality indicators; national panel study; osteoarthritis
• ISSN: 2050-4349; 2050-4357
• DOI: 10.3310/hsdr03110

Background: Shortfalls in the receipt of recommended health care have been previously reported in England, leading to preventable poor health. Objectives: To assess changes over 6 years in the receipt of effective health-care interventions for people aged 50 years or over in England with cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes or osteoarthritis; to identify how quality varied with participant characteristics; and to compare the distribution of illness burden in the population with the distributions of diagnosis and treatment. Setting and participants: Information on health-care quality indicators and participant characteristics was collected using face-to-face structured interviews and nurse visits in participants’ homes by the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing in 2004–5, 2006–7, 2008–9 and 2010–11. A total of 16,773 participants aged 50 years or older were interviewed at least once and 5114 were interviewed in all four waves; 5404 reported diagnosis of one or more of four conditions in 2010–11. Main outcome measures: Percentage of indicated health care received by eligible participants for 19 quality indicators: seven for cardiovascular disease, three for depression, five for diabetes and four for osteoarthritis, and condition-level quality indicator achievement, including achievement of a bundle of three diabetes indicators. Analysis: Changes in quality indicator achievement over time and variations in quality with participant characteristics were tested with Pearson’s chi-squared test and logistic regression models. The size of inequality between the hypothetically wealthiest and poorest participants, for illness burden, diagnosis and treatment, was estimated using slope indices of wealth inequality. Results: Achievement of indicators for cardiovascular disease was 82.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.9% to 85.5%] in 2004–5 and 84.2% (95% CI 82.1% to 86.2%) in 2010–11, for depression 63.3% (95% CI 57.6% to 69.0%) and 59.8% (95% CI 52.4% to 64.3%), for diabetes 76.0% (95% CI 74.1% to 77.8%) and 76.5% (95% CI 74.8% to 78.1%), and for osteoarthritis 31.2% (95% CI 28.5% to 33.8%) and 35.6% (95% CI 34.2% to 37.1%). Achievement of the diabetes care bundle was 67.8% (95% CI 64.5% to 70.9%) in 2010–11. Variations in quality by participant characteristics were generally small. Diabetes indicator achievement was worse in participants with cognitive impairment [odds ratio (OR) 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7] and better in those living alone (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3 t