IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v170y2016icp77-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Quality and Outcomes Framework: Body commodification in UK general practice

Author

Listed:
  • Norman, Armando H.
  • Russell, Andrew J.
  • Merli, Claudia

Abstract

The UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is the largest pay-for-performance scheme in the world. This ethnographic study explored how QOF's monetary logic influences the approach to healthcare in UK general practice. From August 2013 to April 2014, we researched two UK general practice surgeries and one general practice training programme. These environments provided the opportunity for studying various spaces such as QOF meetings, consultation rooms, QOF recoding sessions, and the collection of computer-screen images depicting how patients' biomarkers are evaluated and costed through software systems. QOF as a biomedical technology has led to the commodification of patients and their bodies. This complex phenomenon breaks down into three main themes: commodification of patients, QOF as currency, and valuing commodities. Despite the ostensible aim of QOF being to improve healthcare in general practice, it is accompanied by a body commodification process. The interface between patients and care providers has been commodified, with QOF's pricing mechanism and fragmentation of care provision performing an important role in animating the UK economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Norman, Armando H. & Russell, Andrew J. & Merli, Claudia, 2016. "The Quality and Outcomes Framework: Body commodification in UK general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 77-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:170:y:2016:i:c:p:77-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.10.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616305688
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.10.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lambert, Helen & Gordon, Elisa J. & Bogdan-Lovis, Elizabeth A., 2006. "Introduction: Gift horse or Trojan horse? Social science perspectives on evidence-based health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2613-2620, June.
    2. McDonald, Ruth & Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh & Bayes, Sara & Morriss, Richard & Kai, Joe, 2013. "Competing and coexisting logics in the changing field of English general medical practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 47-54.
    3. Hugh Gravelle & Matt Sutton & Ada Ma, 2008. "Doctor Behaviour Under a Pay for Performance Contract: Further Evidence from the Quality and Outcomes Framework," Working Papers 034cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Anugus w. Laing & Seonaidh Cotton & Rita Joshi & Gordaon Mornach & Mc kee Lorna, 1998. "The Buying Centre: Patterns of Structure and Interaction in Primary Health Care," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 20-37, July.
    5. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martimianakis, Maria Athina (Tina) & Hafferty, Frederic W., 2013. "The world as the new local clinic: A critical analysis of three discourses of global medical competency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 31-38.
    2. Oddvar Kaarboe & Luigi Siciliani, 2011. "Multi‐tasking, quality and pay for performance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 225-238, February.
    3. Brüggemann, Jelmer & Persson, Alma & Wijma, Barbro, 2019. "Understanding and preventing situations of abuse in health care – Navigation work in a Swedish palliative care setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 52-58.
    4. Matt Sutton & Ross Elder & Bruce Guthrie & Graham Watt, 2010. "Record rewards: the effects of targeted quality incentives on the recording of risk factors by primary care providers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Balfe, Myles, 2016. "Standardizing psycho-medical torture during the War on Terror: Why it happened, how it happened, and why it didn't work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Lander, Bryn, 2016. "Boundary-spanning in academic healthcare organisations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1524-1533.
    7. Ihlebæk, Hanna Marie, 2021. "Time to care - An ethnographic study of how temporal structuring affects caring relationships in clinical nursing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    8. Ezell, Jerel M. & Walters, Suzan & Friedman, Samuel R. & Bolinski, Rebecca & Jenkins, Wiley D. & Schneider, John & Link, Bruce & Pho, Mai T., 2021. "Stigmatize the use, not the user? Attitudes on opioid use, drug injection, treatment, and overdose prevention in rural communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    9. Toth, Federico, 2015. "Sovereigns under Siege. How the medical profession is changing in Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 136, pages 128-134.
    10. Per Magnus Mæhle & Ingrid Kristine Small Hanto & Sigbjørn Smeland, 2020. "Practicing Integrated Care Pathways in Norwegian Hospitals: Coordination through Industrialized Standardization, Value Chains, and Quality Management or an Organizational Equivalent to Improvised Jazz," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    11. Kreuzer, Maria & Cado, Vesna & Raïes, Karine, 2020. "Moments of care: How interpersonal interactions contribute to luxury experiences of healthcare consumers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 482-490.
    12. Matt Sutton & Ross Elder & Bruce Guthrie & Graham Watt, 2008. "Record rewards: the effect on risk factor monitoring of new financial incentives for UK general practices," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/21, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    13. Simpson, Bob & Khatri, Rekha & Ravindran, Deapica & Udalagama, Tharindi, 2015. "Pharmaceuticalisation and ethical review in South Asia: Issues of scope and authority for practitioners and policy makers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 247-254.
    14. Vale, Mira D. & Perkins, Denise White, 2022. "Discuss and remember: Clinician strategies for integrating social determinants of health in patient records and care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    15. Daker-White, Gavin & Rogers, Anne & Kennedy, Anne & Blakeman, Thomas & Blickem, Christian & Chew-Graham, Carolyn, 2015. "Non-disclosure of chronic kidney disease in primary care and the limits of instrumental rationality in chronic illness self-management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 31-39.
    16. Anthony Scott & Stefanie Schurer & Paul H. Jensen & Peter Sivey, 2008. "The Effect of Financial Incentives on Quality of Care: The Case of Diabetes," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2008n12, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    17. Yaping Wu & Yijuan Chen & Sanxi Li, 2018. "Optimal compensation rule under provider adverse selection and moral hazard," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 509-524, March.
    18. Yeung, Karen & Dixon-Woods, Mary, 2010. "Design-based regulation and patient safety: A regulatory studies perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 502-509, August.
    19. Llopis, Oscar & D’Este, Pablo, 2016. "Beneficiary contact and innovation: The relation between contact with patients and medical innovation under different institutional logics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1512-1523.
    20. Fudge, Nina & Swinglehurst, Deborah, 2022. "Keeping in balance on the multimorbidity tightrope: A narrative analysis of older patients’ experiences of living with and managing multimorbidity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:170:y:2016:i:c:p:77-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.