QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London
QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London
Degree of perceived professional consensusCVD risk assessment is supported by professional organisations including the British HeartFoundation, the Joint British Societies and the National Obesity Forum, and by guidelinesincluding JBS-2, SIGN and NICE.A consultation with local stakeholders, including representatives from primary care and publichealth, showed overall consensus for the scientific soundness, importance and feasibility of theseindicators in QOF+.Degree of perceived support from patients and carersThere is support for the principles of primary prevention of CVD from a number of patientorganisations including Diabetes UK, the Stroke Association and the British Heart Foundation.Impact on health inequalitiesThose in economically and socially disadvantaged groups and certain ethnic minority groups areat increased risk of CVD. Focussing on primary prevention of CVD in high-risk patients may help toreduce this inequality (Cooper et al., 2008).Health impactPatients may benefit through reduced cardiovascular risk leading to improved life expectancy.Potential harms to patients include iatrogenic effects such as medication side-effects andmedicalisation, leading to negative psychological consequences of having a medical label.24
Workload and training implicationsIncreased workload for primary care teams will be a key issue. This workload will result from theinformation gathering process and the increased contact between primary care practitioners andpatients identified at increased CVD risk. In the long term, there may be a possible reduction inworkload as the identification and management of patients at increased CVD risk may lead toreduced presentation of problems at a later stage.General practice records are now universally computerised and are likely to contain much of theinformation necessary to generate a prior estimate of cardiovascular risk based on existing data(e.g. smoking status, blood pressure and serum lipid profiles) in a high proportion of people(Hobbs et al., 2007). Missing data can be estimated from age- and sex-specific values drawn frompopulation surveys (Marshall, 2006), and automated computer-based risk calculators could beintroduced.The NICE Guideline on Lipid Modification (Cooper et al., 2008) suggests that “using therecommended CVD risk equations, a prior estimate of CVD risk based on pre-existing informationcan be obtained and the practice population can be ranked from highest to lowest risk.” It isproposed that Oberoi software is used to generate a CVD At-Risk Register, using a systematicstrategy to identify asymptomatic people between the ages of 32-74 without diabetes andwithout CVD but who are likely to have a high (20% or greater) 10-year risk of developing CVD(formally estimated through computerized Framingham 1991 10-year risk equations, using CVDrisk factors already documented in their primary care medical records). Starting with those athighest risk, the practice would then invite people to attend for a formal clinical assessment andrisk factor estimation based on the measurement of blood pressure, lipids and current smokingstatus and taking account of other relevant factors such as family history, ethnicity and social orclinical circumstances. Training will be required for primary care staff in cardiovascular riskassessment and communication of risk. The practice will retain responsibility for the creation ofthe CVD at-risk register, which will be dynamic and will require continual updating. However,additional PCT support for this process will be available.In order to evaluate the inclusion in QOF+ of indicators relating to CVD primary prevention, it isimportant for practices to submit anonymised data for this purpose (e.g. uptake of screening byage group, sex, ethnic group, deprivation etc; distribution of risk factors by patient group;changes in risk factors over time; economic appraisal). For details of the proposed training package see section 14.3.1 (p92).25
- Page 1: Towards world class healthcare for
- Page 6 and 7: QOF+ report on breastfeeding ......
- Page 8 and 9: QOF+ report on patient safety .....
- Page 10 and 11: CreditsProject boardJosip CarMiles
- Page 12: AcknowledgementsWe are indebted to
- Page 15 and 16: Executive summaryIntroductionPrevio
- Page 18: Support with QOF+If you have a prob
- Page 22 and 23: The quality and outcomes framework
- Page 24 and 25: Effect of measurement on health ine
- Page 26 and 27: How might a local QOF operate in pr
- Page 28 and 29: Doran T, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis
- Page 30 and 31: Continued…QOFQOF+IndicatorUpperTh
- Page 32 and 33: Alcohol Chapter 4 (p27)IndicatorQOF
- Page 34 and 35: RecordsIndicator+ PRESCRIPTION 1. T
- Page 36 and 37: Patient experience Chapter 12 (p77)
- Page 39 and 40: C3QOF+ report on cardiovasculardise
- Page 41 and 42: Creation of practice CVD at-risk re
- Page 43: achieved through primary prevention
- Page 47 and 48: QOF+ report on alcoholProposed indi
- Page 49 and 50: Local contextThe Hammersmith and Fu
- Page 51 and 52: Workload and training implicationsR
- Page 53 and 54: QOF+ report on smokingProposed indi
- Page 55 and 56: Local context24% of adults (35,000)
- Page 57: ReferencesBritish Medical Associati
- Page 60 and 61: The NICE Clinical Guideline on Ante
- Page 62 and 63: Health impactThere are significant
- Page 65 and 66: QOF+ report on breastfeedingPropose
- Page 67 and 68: Local contextIn 2006/7, the percent
- Page 69 and 70: Degree of perceived professional co
- Page 71 and 72: QOF+ report on ethnicityProposed In
- Page 73 and 74: Associated Morbidity and MortalityT
- Page 75: Workload and training implicationsP
- Page 78 and 79: Priority and relevance to national
- Page 80 and 81: Specific reasons for this framework
- Page 82 and 83: Workload and training implicationsT
- Page 85 and 86: QOF+ report on newpatient screening
- Page 87 and 88: Review of evidence to support the p
- Page 89 and 90: QOF+ report onpatient informationPr
- Page 91 and 92: Priority and relevance to national
- Page 93 and 94: Degree of perceived support from pa
Workload and training implicationsIncreased workload for primary care teams will be a key issue. This workload will result from theinformation gathering process and the increased contact between primary care practitioners andpatients identified at increased CVD risk. In the long term, there may be a possible reduction inworkload as the identification and management of patients at increased CVD risk may lead toreduced presentation of problems at a later stage.General practice records are now universally computerised and are likely to contain much of theinformation necessary to generate a prior estimate of cardiovascular risk based on existing data(e.g. smoking status, blood pressure and serum lipid profiles) in a high proportion of people(Hobbs et al., 2007). Missing data can be estimated from age- and sex-specific values drawn frompopulation surveys (Marshall, 2006), and automated computer-based risk calculators could beintroduced.The NICE Guideline on Lipid Modification (Cooper et al., 2008) suggests that “using therecommended CVD risk equations, a prior estimate of CVD risk based on pre-existing informationcan be obtained and the practice population can be ranked from highest to lowest risk.” It isproposed that Oberoi software is used to generate a CVD At-Risk Register, using a systematicstrategy to identify asymptomatic people between the ages of 32-74 without diabetes andwithout CVD but who are likely to have a high (20% or greater) 10-year risk of developing CVD(formally estimated through computerized Framingham 1991 10-year risk equations, using CVDrisk factors already documented in their primary care medical records). Starting with those athighest risk, the practice would then invite people to attend for a formal clinical assessment andrisk factor estimation based on the measurement of blood pressure, lipids and current smokingstatus and taking account of other relevant factors such as family history, ethnicity and social orclinical circumstances. Training will be required for primary care staff in cardiovascular riskassessment and communication of risk. The practice will retain responsibility for the creation ofthe CVD at-risk register, which will be dynamic and will require continual updating. However,additional PCT support for this process will be available.In order to evaluate the inclusion in <strong>QOF</strong>+ of indicators relating to CVD primary prevention, it isimportant for practices to submit anonymised data for this purpose (e.g. uptake of screening byage group, sex, ethnic group, deprivation etc; distribution of risk factors by patient group;changes in risk factors over time; economic appraisal). For details of the proposed training package see section 14.3.1 (p92).25