Skip to main content

Should the QOF focus on outcome targets?

The Quality & Outcomes Framework (QOF) is now well established in primary care. With control of the framework now lying with the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE), we can expect a greater focus on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of quality indicators. In the early years of the QOF, a large proportion of target payments were awarded for achieving process measures, such as measuring blood pressure or HbA1c. Achievement of such process measures is now very high, with little room for improvement in many practices and limited potential for further health gain.

By contrast, control of key risk factors, such as blood pressure in people with hypertension, or HBA1c in people with diabetes, could still be improved considerably. But changing patients' behaviour or optimising their management to achieve such improvements is difficult and imposes a considerable workload on primary care. So it is logical to consider increasing the financial incentives for achieving better management of such intermediate clinical outcome measures. It is also appropriate to raise the thresholds for achievement of quality targets to ensure practices that provide the very best care are rewarded appropriately for their work.

At the same time as improving the management of patients with established diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and stroke, we also need to reward practices that are effective in preventing disease and delaying the onset of complications once a disease such as diabetes or hypertension is present. The UK is faced with major public health challenges in areas such as obesity, smoking, alcohol and sexual health. Some GPs may argue improvements in such areas are outside the scope of primary care and lie with wider societal interventions. But this underestimates the ingenuity of primary care teams.

There are practices that have implemented innovative schemes in targeting public health, with support from their primary care organisations. An example is the QOF Plus scheme in Hammersmith and Fulham PCT, which has incentivised reductions in smoking and alcohol misuse, and areas such as cardiovascular disease prevention. An example of such an indicator might be the proportion of patients with newly identified impaired fasting glycaemia or impaired glucose tolerance who progress to normoglycaemia after entering a disease prevention programme. Practices that can implement effective interventions to improve management in these areas will have a direct impact on the health of their patients, and should be rewarded.

Outcome-based quality targets, whether for clinical indicators or public health indicators, are more difficult to achieve in some sections of the population. GPs working in inner-city areas may feel they have to work much harder and invest more practice resources to perform well on outcome-based quality targets. This is true - but we can address this by ensuring that, where appropriate, payments for achieving quality targets reflect the population GPs serve, to ensure those working with vulnerable populations are rewarded sufficiently for providing high-quality care and starting to address health inequalities.

We are right to be proud of the NHS. We all want it to provide high-quality care. Despite our best intentions, a considerable gap remains between best achievable practice and the quality of care actually being provided. Focusing the QOF on clinical outcomes will help address this quality gap by rewarding practices that ensure our patients receive the care they need to maintain their health, prevent the onset of disease and optimise their management when patients do develop a chronic disease.

Source: Pulse August 5th 2009

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

UK Covid-19 Inquiry - The Importance of a Strong Primary Healthcare System

In my witness statement for Module 10 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, I discuss the pandemic's impact through from the perspectives of  primary care and public health, drawing on my extensive experience as a senior academic at Imperial College London and as a practising GP and NHS Public Health Specialist.  I emphasise that the pandemic disproportionately affected people who were clinically vulnerable, the disabled, ethnic minority communities and those living in deprived areas. The pandemic highlighted how structural inequalities, multigenerational housing, and employment in high-risk frontline roles exacerbated health disparities.  My statement also critiques the weakening of public health infrastructure - particularly for the control of infectious diseases - and the lack of integrated health data systems to identify at-risk groups such as the clinically vulnerable. I also advocated for a more robust preventive healthcare model that prioritises community-based primary care ...

Protecting Young People from Meningococcal B Disease: The NHS Targeted Vaccination Programme

Meningococcal group B (MenB) infections are rare but can have devastating consequences. The decision to offer a targeted two-dose vaccination programme to Year 13 students and young people entering university or residential further education reflects concerns about recent outbreaks of meningococcal disease and the higher risk of transmission when large numbers of young adults mix closely for the first time in shared accommodation. The MenB vaccine has a well-established safety record, and evidence from the UK infant immunisation programme has shown substantial reductions in disease among vaccinated children. A targeted programme for those entering higher-risk settings is therefore a reasonable precautionary measure while further evidence is gathered on whether the recent increase in clusters represents a temporary fluctuation in disease patterns or a more sustained change in the epidemiology of MenB infection. The success of the programme will depend on achieving high uptake and ensuri...