Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

Relationship between quality of care and choice of clinical computing system: retrospective analysis of family practice performance under the UK's quality and outcomes framework
  1. Evangelos Kontopantelis1,2,
  2. Iain Buchan3,
  3. David Reeves1,2,
  4. Kath Checkland1,
  5. Tim Doran4
  1. 1NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Centre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  4. 4Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Evangelos Kontopantelis; e.kontopantelis{at}


Objectives To investigate the relationship between performance on the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme and choice of clinical computer system.

Design Retrospective longitudinal study.

Setting Data for 2007–2008 to 2010–2011, extracted from the clinical computer systems of general practices in England.

Participants All English practices participating in the pay-for-performance scheme: average 8257 each year, covering over 99% of the English population registered with a general practice.

Main outcome measures Levels of achievement on 62 quality-of-care indicators, measured as: reported achievement (levels of care after excluding inappropriate patients); population achievement (levels of care for all patients with the relevant condition) and percentage of available quality points attained. Multilevel mixed effects multiple linear regression models were used to identify population, practice and clinical computing system predictors of achievement.

Results Seven clinical computer systems were consistently active in the study period, collectively holding approximately 99% of the market share. Of all population and practice characteristics assessed, choice of clinical computing system was the strongest predictor of performance across all three outcome measures. Differences between systems were greatest for intermediate outcomes indicators (eg, control of cholesterol levels).

Conclusions Under the UK's pay-for-performance scheme, differences in practice performance were associated with the choice of clinical computing system. This raises the question of whether particular system characteristics facilitate higher quality of care, better data recording or both. Inconsistencies across systems need to be understood and addressed, and researchers need to be cautious when generalising findings from samples of providers using a single computing system.

  • General Medicine (see Internal Medicine)
  • Public Health
  • Primary Care

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Linked Articles

  • Correction
    British Medical Journal Publishing Group