- A Sarah Walker, statistician12,
- David Spiegelhalter, professor of the public understanding of risk34,
- Derrick W Crook, consultant microbiologist1,
- David Wyllie, research fellow5,
- James Morris, consultant pathologist1,
- Tim E A Peto, professor of infectious diseases1
- 1National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre Programme, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU
- 2MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London NW1 2DA
- 3MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 0SR
- 4Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge CB3 0WB
- 5Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU
- Correspondence to: A S Walker asw{at}ctu.mrc.ac.uk
- Accepted 15 September 2008
Financial incentives are increasingly being used to promote delivery of efficient, high quality health care.1 2 3 However, it is widely agreed that such incentives have to be carefully constructed, with clear and simple links between behaviours or outcomes and incentives, direct indicators that validly measure the desired behaviours or outcomes, and sufficient stability to give surety to hospitals that effort (time, money) put into achieving targets is warranted.1 3 We examine how well these criteria are met by the financial penalties introduced for failing to reduce hospital acquired Clostridium difficile infection as part of the 2008-9 standard National Health Service contract for acute services.
What are the targets and financial penalties?
In response to a new hypervirulent strain of C difficile causing large hospital outbreaks since 2003,4 5 the Department of Health recently set a target of a 30% reduction in C difficile infections in patients aged 2 years or older across the entire health economy (within and outside acute NHS trusts) from 2007-8 to 2010-11.6 All financial penalties relating to this target are based on comparing the number of cases observed in the current “contract year” to the number of cases observed in the previous “baseline” financial year. If 200 or more cases are observed in the baseline or contract year, the penalty is based on failing to meet the target reduction in the contract year (0.2% of total contract year revenue for every percentage point the target is underachieved, capped at 2% when target underachieved by 10%). However, if fewer than 200 cases are observed in the baseline and contract year, the penalty is based on exceeding the …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012