QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London
QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London
Appendix 4Methodology for the design and development of thenew indicators for QOF+Methodology for the creation of new indicator areas long listTo inform development of new QOF+ indicators, a member of the group conducted an initialreview of the existing literature on quality improvement in health care settings, and ondevelopment of quality indicators. The methodology chosen for development of the new clinicalindicators drew on the methodology for reviewing the Quality and Outcomes Framework –theQOF Review (Lester, 2006) and for developing indicators for the quality of health promotion,prevention and primary care at the health systems level in OECD countries (Marshall et al., 2004).The QOF Review is an independent academic process which advises the NHS Employees and GPnegotiators on a range of evidence based clinical indicators. This Review is a collaborationbetween the Universities of Birmingham and Manchester, the Society of Academic Primary Careand the Royal College of General Practitioners.Potential local, national, and international sources for new indicator areas were identified andconsidered. Local data sources included the NHS Hammersmith and Fulham public health report(Zeuner, 2008), PCT Operating Plan 2008/9 (Hammersmith and Fulham PCT, 2008) and localenhanced service schemes (Hammersmith and Fulham PCT, 2008). National data sources includedthe Healthcare Commission Key Performance Indicators (Healthcare Commission, 2008), NHSVital Signs indicators (DoH, 2008) and recent national guidance, including that produced by theNational Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), as well as considering topicsaddressed by other Local Enhanced Services schemes nationally. The OECD indicators developedfor use in a primary care setting were also considered (Marshall et al., 2004). Selected localstakeholders including the Local Director of Public Health were consulted to seek their views onpotential approaches for creation of the long list. The members of the QOF+ Development Group,which included GPs and Consultants in Public Health, contributed additional ideas for potentialnew indicator areas. Documentation from NHS Hammersmith and Fulham’s Patient and PublicInvolvement Forum was also reviewed to gain a perspective on the views of local patients inorder to help inform the process (Hammersmith and Fulham PCT, 2007). A full formalconsultation with local stakeholders including primary care and patients was not performed atthis stage however, due to the time restraints and subsequent tight deadlines that the group wasworking within.Following discussion within the QOF+ development group, it was decided that areas wouldinitially be included on the long list if they were identified as either a local or national priorityarea. The group agreed that an area would be defined as a local priority if it was highlighted inthe NHS Hammersmith and Fulham Annual Public Health Report (Zeuner, 2008). A nationalpriority area would be defined by its inclusion as a Key Performance Indicator by the HealthcareCommission (Healthcare Commission, 2008). It was agreed that a key theme of QOF+ should bethe focus on reducing health inequalities locally. The PCT public health report focuses on areasrelevant to health inequalities locally, and these were therefore used to help identify potentialnew indicator areas for QOF+ (Zeuner, 2008). Following discussion within the QOF+ developmentgroup, with the PCT and with national experts in quality improvement, it was felt that due to the130
tight timescale of this project, it was beyond the scope of QOF+ to incorporate all the LESschemes currently offered by the PCT. However, it was felt that it would be feasible to considerinclusion of selected existing LES schemes which were more likely to fit into the QOF+ framework.The LES which were considered for inclusion within QOF+ for year 1 included CVD PrimaryPrevention, Smoking Cessation, Immunisations and Choose and Book (which was underdevelopment by the PCT).Following further discussion, it was decided to:consider adapting the existing CVD Primary Prevention and immunisations LES for QOF+,stop development of new indicators for Choose and Book through QOF+ as there wasalready a proposed LES for this and there were practical issues around indicatordevelopment (e.g. most GPs do not read-code referrals so it would be difficult to use anindicator to evaluate what percentage of referrals were made through Choose andBook), and toconsider development of indicators for smoking cessation in parallel to the existing LESon smoking cessation.Following review of the long list, it was agreed that areas that were already incorporated into thenational QOF should not be included as new indicators for the clinical domains of QOF+, but couldinstead be considered in terms of raising thresholds of the existing indicators. These areas includeheart failure, CVD, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, COPD, CKD, mental health, dementia, palliativecare (BMA, 2006).Remaining indicator areas were classified using the OECD framework of Health Promotion,Preventative Care, and Diagnosis and Treatment (Marshall et al., 2004), as well as the followingdomains of quality: Patient-centredness/Empowerment, Organisational and Safety. A decisionwas initially taken not to include organisational indicators or indicators related to primary careaccess within QOF+, in view of the presence of this area within the national QOF, and in view ofthe limited timescale for roll-out of the scheme. In addition, the QOF+ Development Group wasaware of the possibility that incentive arrangements for organisational quality through thenational QOF may change as a result of the roll-out of practice accreditation schemes including ascheme developed by the Royal College of General Practitioners (National Primary Care Researchand Development Centre, 2008).However, additional funding for QOF+ became available at a later stage of the project, and it wasthen decided to incorporate aspects of the Imperial College Data Quality project into QOF+.Additional domains relating to patient experience, patient safety, patient information and patientregistration (new patient screening for Tuberculosis) were developed further by NHSHammersmith and Fulham using a separate methodology.131
- Page 99 and 100: Rosen et al. (2001) categorised ini
- Page 101 and 102: The National 2007 Quality and Outco
- Page 103: ReferencesBaker, R (2007) Quality a
- Page 106 and 107: BackgroundThe United Nations Conven
- Page 108 and 109: In March 2008, a PCT audit of signi
- Page 110 and 111: Impact on health inequalitiesPovert
- Page 112 and 113: Training and support requirements f
- Page 114 and 115: Information on self-directed online
- Page 116 and 117: New patient screeningProposed train
- Page 118 and 119: Patient experienceLearning disabili
- Page 120 and 121: Appendix 1Background to the QOF+ de
- Page 122 and 123: Appendix 2Methodology for the exten
- Page 124 and 125: PrevalenceRegistersizeAsthma 5.75%
- Page 126 and 127: While both threshold types are remu
- Page 128 and 129: The low level of remuneration for c
- Page 130 and 131: Exception reportingMany QOF (and a
- Page 132 and 133: indicators compared to national rat
- Page 134 and 135: 114
- Page 136 and 137: Appendix 3Current levels of attainm
- Page 138 and 139: Percentage of practices at or below
- Page 140 and 141: Percentage of practices at or below
- Page 142 and 143: Percentage of practices at or below
- Page 144 and 145: Percentage of practices at or below
- Page 146 and 147: Percentage of practices at or below
- Page 148 and 149: Percentage of practices at or below
- Page 152 and 153: As a result of the prioritisation p
- Page 154 and 155: Methodology for the development of
- Page 156 and 157: Assessment of new clinical and reco
- Page 158 and 159: Communication with the PCT’s heal
- Page 160 and 161: Appendix 5Methodology for the devel
- Page 162 and 163: Appendix 6Summary of the QOF+ schem
tight timescale of this project, it was beyond the scope of <strong>QOF</strong>+ to incorporate all the LESschemes currently offered by the PCT. However, it was felt that it would be feasible to considerinclusion of selected existing LES schemes which were more likely to fit into the <strong>QOF</strong>+ framework.The LES which were considered for inclusion within <strong>QOF</strong>+ for year 1 included CVD PrimaryPrevention, Smoking Cessation, Immunisations and Choose and Book (which was underdevelopment by the PCT).Following further discussion, it was decided to:consider adapting the existing CVD Primary Prevention and immunisations LES for <strong>QOF</strong>+,stop development of new indicators for Choose and Book through <strong>QOF</strong>+ as there wasalready a proposed LES for this and there were practical issues around indicatordevelopment (e.g. most GPs do not read-code referrals so it would be difficult to use anindicator to evaluate what percentage of referrals were made through Choose andBook), and toconsider development of indicators for smoking cessation in parallel to the existing LESon smoking cessation.Following review of the long list, it was agreed that areas that were already incorporated into thenational <strong>QOF</strong> should not be included as new indicators for the clinical domains of <strong>QOF</strong>+, but couldinstead be considered in terms of raising thresholds of the existing indicators. These areas includeheart failure, CVD, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, COPD, CKD, mental health, dementia, palliativecare (BMA, 2006).Remaining indicator areas were classified using the OECD framework of Health Promotion,Preventative Care, and Diagnosis and Treatment (Marshall et al., 2004), as well as the followingdomains of quality: Patient-centredness/Empowerment, Organisational and Safety. A decisionwas initially taken not to include organisational indicators or indicators related to primary careaccess within <strong>QOF</strong>+, in view of the presence of this area within the national <strong>QOF</strong>, and in view ofthe limited timescale for roll-out of the scheme. In addition, the <strong>QOF</strong>+ Development Group wasaware of the possibility that incentive arrangements for organisational quality through thenational <strong>QOF</strong> may change as a result of the roll-out of practice accreditation schemes including ascheme developed by the Royal <strong>College</strong> of General Practitioners (National Primary Care Researchand Development Centre, 2008).However, additional funding for <strong>QOF</strong>+ became available at a later stage of the project, and it wasthen decided to incorporate aspects of the <strong>Imperial</strong> <strong>College</strong> Data Quality project into <strong>QOF</strong>+.Additional domains relating to patient experience, patient safety, patient information and patientregistration (new patient screening for Tuberculosis) were developed further by NHSHammersmith and Fulham using a separate methodology.131