Observational studyBMC health services research2024
Association between regulator inspection and ratings on primary care prescribing: an observational study in England 2014 to 2019.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare regulators in many countries undertake inspections of healthcare providers and publish inspection outcomes with the intention of improving quality of care. Comprehensive inspections of general practices in England by the Care Quality Commission began for the first time in 2014. It is assumed that inspection and rating will raise standards and improve care, but the presence and extent of any improvements is unknown. We aim to determine if practice inspection ratings are associated with past performance on prescribing indicators and if prescribing behaviour changes following inspection.
methodsLongitudinal study using a dataset of 6771 general practices in England. Practice inspection date and score was linked with monthly practice-level data on prescribing indicators relating to antibiotics, hypnotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The sample covers practices receiving their first inspection between September 2014 and December 2018. Regression analysis and the differential timing of inspections is used to identify the impact on prescribing.
resultsBetter-rated practices had better prescribing in the period before inspections began. In the six months following inspections, no overall change in prescribing was observed. However, the differences between the best and worse rated practices were reduced but not fully. The same is also true when taking a longer-term view. There is little evidence that practices responded in anticipation of inspection or reacted differently once the ratings were made public.
conclusionWhile some of the observed historic variation in prescribing behaviour has been lessened by the process of inspection and ratings, we find this change is small and appears to come from both improvements among lower-rated practices and deteriorations among higher-rated practices. While inspection and rating no doubt had other impacts, these prescribing indicators were largely unchanged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.