QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ReferencesCholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators (2005) Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-loweringtreatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90 056 participants in 14 randomised trials ofstatins. Lancet 366:1267-78Cooper A, Nherera L, Calvert N, O’Flynn N, Turnbull N, Robson J, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Rule C, BrowneN, Ritchie G, Stokes T, Mannan R, Bath P, Brindle P, Gill P, Gujral R, Hogg M, Marshall T, Minhas R,Pavitt L, Reckless J, Rutherford A, Thorogood M, Wood D (2008) Clinical Guidelines and EvidenceReview for Lipid Modification: cardiovascular risk assessment and the primary and secondaryprevention of cardiovascular disease London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care andRoyal College of General Practitioners.Department of Health (2000) National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. The StationaryOffice: LondonDepartment of Health (2001) National Service Framework for Older People. The Stationary Office:LondonHennekens CH (1999) Update on aspirin in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease.American Heart Journal 137:S9-S13Joint British Societies (2005). JBS 2: Joint British Societies' guidelines on prevention of cardiovasculardisease in clinical practice. Heart 91S5:v1-52Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Beiser A, Levy D (1999) Lifetime risk of developing coronary heartdisease. Lancet 353:89-92Marshall T, Rouse A (2002). Resource implications and health benefits of primary prevention strategiesfor cardiovascular disease in people aged 30 to 74: mathematical modelling study. British MedicalJournal 325:197-9Marshall T (2006). Estimating the value of information in strategies for identifying patients at high riskof cardiovascular disease. Informatics in Primary Care 14:85-98NICE (2008) Lipid Modification: Costing Template. NICEScottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2007). Risk estimation and the prevention ofcardiovascular disease. A national clinical guideline. [Online, Accessed November 01 2008] Available athttp://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign97.pdf.Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, MacFarlane PW, et al. (1995). Prevention ofcoronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland CoronaryPrevention Study Group. New England Joirnal of Medicine 333:1301-7Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G (2000) Effects of an angiotensin-convertingenzymeinhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart OutcomesPrevention Evaluation Study Investigators. New England Journal of Medicine 342:145-53Zeuner, D (2008) Annual Report of the Director of Public Health 2007-2008. Hammersmith and FulhamPCT26
QOF+ report on alcoholProposed indicatorsIndicatorQOF+pointsPaymentstages+ ALCOHOL 1. The percentage of patients on one or morepractice registers for CVD At-Risk, Diabetes, Stroke and TIA,Hypertension and CHD who have had AUDIT-C or FASTrecorded on the practice system within the previous 17months+ ALCOHOL 2. The proportion of patients who screen positiveusing either AUDIT-C or FAST within the previous 17 monthswho are subsequently recorded as having a brief interventionfor alcohol misuse15 20-70%30 40-90%It is prerequisite that in order to receive payment for + ALCOHOL 2, practices have reached thelower threshold for + ALCOHOL 1.Practices may also wish to consider participating in the Directed Enhanced Service (DES) forAlcohol 2009/10 which provides additional incentives for screening newly registered patients inprimary care settings.BackgroundResearch by Kaner et al. (1999a) suggests that up to 98 percent of hazardous and harmfuldrinkers may be missed in primary care due to a reliance on clinical history and signs. Themajority of patients in primary care do not object to being asked about their alcohol consumptionif there are good reasons to do so (Wallace and Haines, 1984; Richmond et al., 1996). Primarycare is an ideal setting within which to deliver brief interventions for alcohol misuse in view of itsaccess to the majority of the population, the absence of stigma attached to attending primarycare settings, the presence of ‘teachable moments’ in consultations about alcohol-relatedillnesses, and the generally high credibility in the community of GPs and other primary careprofessionals (Babor, Ritson and Hodgson, 1986).27
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 and 44: achieved through primary prevention
Page 45: Workload and training implicationsI
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
Page 95 and 96: ReferencesCarpenter A and Mayers A
Page 97 and 98:
QOF+ report onpatient experiencePro
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:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Appendix 4Methodology for the desig
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
show all

QOF Plus Year 1 - Imperial College London

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?