QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London

As a result of the prioritisation process for new clinical indicators, a long list of twenty potentialpriority areas was identified. For the purposes of further evaluation of these areas through astructured consultation with local stakeholders, four areas (including chronic disease case finding,reduction of healthcare-associated infections (eg MRSA), data quality on ethnic group and qualityof medical records) were removed from the long list as they were identified as fundamentalcomponents of QOF+, and would therefore be automatically incorporated within QOF+. Thisresulted in a final long list of 16 areas.AlcoholAdult smokingBreastfeeding initiation and maintenanceChildhood immunisationChildhood obesityCVD primary preventionDrug misuseIncreasing attendance for breast screeningIncreasing attendance for cervical screeningInfluenza immunisationMeasurement of patient experienceOsteoarthritisSelf-management of long-term conditionsSexual health, including STI screening and preventionSmoking in pregnancyTuberculosis screeningConsultation with local stakeholders to select priority areas for thedevelopment of QOF+ indicatorsThe final long list of potential indicator areas was developed into a Delphi questionnaire. Thisquestionnaire was piloted among the group, and wording and structure modified as a result. Thequestionnaire was then circulated to a local stakeholder panel for consultation to seek their viewsthrough participation in a consensus building exercise.The local stakeholder panel was drawn from NHS Hammersmith and Fulham and from localprimary care services and included the Director of Public Health, Head of Primary CareDevelopment, Professional Executive Committee (PEC) Chair, a local GP and a local PracticeNurse. The merits of including a patient representative on the panel were debated, but in view ofthe fact that the group had been unable to make contact with the PCT’s Patient and PublicInvolvement Forum, it was decided that a patient representative would not be included in view ofthe tight timescale for indicator development. It was also proposed that the panel included apractice manager. However, attempts to identify a practice manager for this purpose wereunsuccessful, and therefore there was no practice manager representation for the first phase ofthe structured consultation process. The local stakeholder panel’s views were used to help select132