Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Quality after the QOF? Before dismantling it, we need a redefined measure of ‘quality’

James Close, Richard Byng, Jose M Valderas, Nicky Britten and Helen Lloyd
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (672): 314-315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X697589
James Close
Community and Primary Care Research Group, University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
Roles: Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Byng
Community and Primary Care Research Group, University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
Roles: Professor in Primary Care Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose M Valderas
University of Exeter; President, International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL), Exeter.
Roles: Professor of Health Services & Policy Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicky Britten
Institute of Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Roles: Professor in Applied Healthcare Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Lloyd
Community and Primary Care Research Group, University of Plymouth Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth.
Roles: Senior Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) for UK general practice is one of the largest health-related pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes in the world.1 In 2004, the scheme initially had a positive impact on quality of care, primarily achieved via establishment of procedural baselines in the clinical management of incentivised (mostly chronic) diseases. It reduced between-practice variation in care delivery while also improving disease registers, recording of clinical activities, and adoption of electronic medical record systems, leading to an explosion in general practice data and research.1,2

Despite some successes, recent years have seen accelerated debate concerning the removal of QOF. One major criticism is that QOF does not incentivise person-centred care for people with complex conditions,2,3 who require individualised support. This is not captured in the vast majority of indicators, which are based on clinical guidelines.

For example, continuity of care — a critical function of primary care — is valued by patients and associated with improved experience, outcomes, adherence, and preventive medicine, and it may be associated with reduced hospital admissions, death rates, and cost of secondary care/hospitalisation.4 It can be considered a marker of a holistic approach, which is considered essential for the increasing numbers of people with multimorbidity and complex healthcare needs.5 Yet it is currently in decline,6 was reduced after the introduction of QOF,7 and is not being captured by QOF.

REMOVING QOF: THE RISKS

In an environment of increasing patient complexity and a drive towards person centeredness, QOF — with its current focus on process indicators — is perceived by many as increasingly anachronistic. A recent systematic review summarised that ‘QOF is unlikely to advance progress towards the vision of the Five Year Forward View for the care of long-term conditions’.1 In response to such criticisms (with financial pressures also perhaps weighing heavily), the Department of Health (DOH) signalled in 2014 a move towards devolution of QOF to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), allowing freedom to develop alternatives. More recently, both the NHS Chief Executive and the General Practitioners Committee (GPC) Chair have questioned the future of QOF.8

Recent evaluations of experiments with QOF de-incentivisation provide clues for the benefits and dangers of QOF de-incentivisation, and have confirmed that QOF has become unpopular among many professionals: it imposes an administrative burden and can act as an impediment to the delivery of tailored, person-centred consultations.9,10 Removal of QOF incentives may have fostered greater person-centred coordinated care (P3C) via several mechanisms, including changes to GP appointments and reallocation of resources to facilitate service re-design (for example, via involvement in new care models).9,10 Conversely, although most important clinical quality markers have not suffered, QOF de-incentivisation has led to less consistent record keeping,9,10 contradicting arguments that high-quality data will continue to be captured.2

If that trend was confirmed, general practice would become more opaque and less accountable, with adverse implications for research and healthcare management. Removing basic assurances of quality of care delivery6 could prove a dangerous experiment. It would be difficult to identify ‘struggling practices’ (such as those undergoing difficult transitions) that are falling below basic standards once ensured by QOF (recalling patients with long-term conditions, for example). The subsequent increase in healthcare costs could outweigh any marginal financial gains achieved via its removal. Until a satisfactory alternative is identified, such fears are liable to confound policymakers.

A redesigned measure of ‘quality’ could help balance the competing priorities of various stakeholders. First, it will need assurances that measurable quality is maintained across general practice in the core functions of access, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and whole-person orientation. Second, it should represent evolving notions of quality: person centredness, prevention, wellbeing, and also include an expanded role for patient safety.

We propose a framework for debate, outlining five suggestions that are not mutually exclusive. They are all based on a vision for a streamlined system that aims to minimise additional burden on a discipline under huge pressure6 and that returns a responsibility that is desired by so many GPs: the freedom to tailor consultations, organise care, and take responsibility for improving quality without the interference of ‘box-ticking’ exercises. The framework also considers that data are most likely to lead to quality improvements when they are credible to GPs, with feedback that is timely, actionable, and designed to drive improvements (via information sharing and learning from best practice). Key data should also be available for multidirectional feedback, including for researchers, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and healthcare managers. These should be simple metrics that are easily understood, provide clear warning signals, and where issues of tunnel vision, gaming, and perverse incentives can be avoided. Our suggestions include both interim/transitional solutions for efficiently baselining ‘quality’ (assuring certain standards are maintained) and a longer-term view on how person centredness might be embedded into healthcare systems.

REMOVING QOF: THE ALTERNATIVES

First, QOF could be adapted to local requirements (for example, such as QOF+ in Hammersmith & Fulham from 2008–201111 and Dudley LTCF (Long Term Conditions Framework),12 retaining a core consensus indicator set to reduce administrative burden (‘QOF Lite’). Any indicator set should represent aspects of care that clinicians and patients see as important (for example, RCGP collaborative care), measurable, and reliably recorded, thus increasing clinical ownership, confidence in data,13 and tailored to the epidemiological and socioeconomic characteristics of the populations.

Second, the use of general practice contact data could be explored as a set of complementary measures of access, follow-up, and continuity. Reporting could include the frequency of consultation, personnel involved (inclusive of wider members of primary healthcare team), mode (telephone, email, visit), purpose, patient type, duration, and time allocated for person-centred care planning (importantly, flexibility should be encouraged).4 Such a system may retain one of the key benefits of QOF (assurance of care delivery) with reduced administrative burden, while allowing clinicians the freedom to adapt models of care according to local need. These data would need to be complemented with health experience and outcome data as outlined below, thus facilitating comparisons across different delivery models. A national dataset of this type could provide a more nuanced perspective of continuity than indicators such as the ‘usual provider of care index’; facilitate the evaluation of trends in general practice (such as changes in practice size and complexity); and potentially support reductions in healthcare inequalities, for example, specifically incentivising contacts with poorly served patients.

Third, continued enhancements to the current approaches to capturing patient experience, including measures of patient experiences (PREMs) such as the GP Patient Survey (GPPS — which currently measures self-management, shared decision making, and person-centred care planning) — would facilitate triangulation of information. Such efforts should ensure inclusiveness and target under-represented and complex patients. Direct incentivisation of PREMs would be problematic, and liable to unfairly penalising practices from deprived areas. Instead, locally directed learning from PREM data should be encouraged, as discussed in recent detailed guidance documents.5

Fourth, tools measuring health outcomes such as quality of life and other patient outcomes (PROMs) could be routinely used to monitor the performance of the system in line with DOH policy for ‘wider use of effective tools like PROMs, patient experience data, and real-time feedback’.14

A number of organisational, methodological, and logistical challenges to the utilisation of PROMs/PREMs in primary care would need be addressed during testing, evaluation, and scaling.13 Investment in Computerised Adaptive Testing (CAT) for both PROMs and PREMs (similar to the NIH-backed PROMIS scheme) may help overcome the challenges presented by the clinical complexity of the general practice landscape. The use of these measures also offers the potential to support self-management and wellbeing. Recent guidance for development and measurement of new models of care facilitate such efforts.5

Fifth, current recall systems, which are burdensome, unpopular, and ill-suited for patients with multimorbidity,9 should be replaced with a more efficient and person-centred management system (for example, one system is trialling in Dudley LTCF).12 This would require co-design with patients, GPs, managers, information specialists, and researchers, with in-built capture of general practice contact data. Such a system could promote continuity via mechanisms such as an intelligent booking system, altered receptionist behaviour (to promote continuity), and possibly aid with the division of larger practices into working units of smaller, coordinated teams (for example, as proposed by others).15

Whatever shape future systems take, it should deliver valid and reliable data on quality assurances and intelligence, while handing more freedom to practices to conduct their own local audits and peer-to-peer learning.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2018

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Forbes LJ,
    2. Marchand C,
    3. Doran T,
    4. Peckham S
    (2017) Br J Gen Pract, The role of the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the care of long-term conditions: a systematic review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X693077.
  2. 2.↵
    1. McShane M,
    2. Mitchell E
    (2015) Person centred coordinated care: where does the QOF point us? BMJ 350:h2540.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kontopantelis E,
    2. Springate DA,
    3. Ashworth M,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Investigating the relationship between quality of primary care and premature mortality in England: a spatial whole-population study. BMJ 350:h904.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Pereira Gray D,
    2. Sidaway-Lee K,
    3. White E,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Improving continuity: THE clinical challenge. InnovAiT doi:10.1177/1755738016654504.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lloyd HM,
    2. Pearson M,
    3. Sheaff R,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Collaborative action for person-centred coordinated care (P3C): an approach to support the development of a comprehensive system-wide solution to fragmented care. Health Res Policy Syst 15(1):98.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Baird B,
    2. Charles A,
    3. Honeyman M,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Understanding pressures in general practice (King’s Fund, London).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Campbell SM,
    2. Kontopantelis E,
    3. Reeves D,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Changes in patient experiences of primary care during health service reforms in England between 2003 and 2007. Ann Fam Med 8(6):499–506.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bostock N
    (Oct 20, 2016) GP Online, GPC backs ‘bold step’ as Simon Stevens says QOF has reached end of the road. https://www.gponline.com/gpc-backs-bold-step-simon-stevens-says-qof-reached-end-road/article/1412823 (accessed 24 May 2018).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lloyd H
    (2015) An evaluation of the Somerset practice quality scheme (SPQS), http://www.swahsn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Evaluation-of-the-Somerset-Practice-Quality-Scheme-July-2015.pdf (accessed 24 May 2018).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Close J,
    2. Witts L,
    3. Horrell J,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Evaluation of the Somerset practice quality scheme (SPQS): PHASE 2. http://p3c.org.uk/SPQS_Phase2_ExecSummary.pdf (accessed 24 May 2018).
  11. 11.↵
    1. Pape UJ,
    2. Huckvale K,
    3. Car J,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Impact of ‘stretch’ targets for cardiovascular disease management within a local pay-for-performance programme. PLOS One 10(3):e0119185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Singh K,
    2. Ellins J,
    3. Miller R,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Evaluation of Dudley quality outcomes for health: final report. (ICF).
  13. 13.↵
    1. Greenhalgh J,
    2. Dalkin S,
    3. Gooding K,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Health Serv Deliv Res 5(2).
  14. 14.↵
    1. The Stationery Office
    (2010) Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS (TSO, Norwich).
  15. 15.↵
    1. Barker I,
    2. Steventon A,
    3. Deeny SR
    (2017) Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ 356:j84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 68 (672)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 68, Issue 672
July 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality after the QOF? Before dismantling it, we need a redefined measure of ‘quality’
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Quality after the QOF? Before dismantling it, we need a redefined measure of ‘quality’
James Close, Richard Byng, Jose M Valderas, Nicky Britten, Helen Lloyd
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (672): 314-315. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X697589

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Quality after the QOF? Before dismantling it, we need a redefined measure of ‘quality’
James Close, Richard Byng, Jose M Valderas, Nicky Britten, Helen Lloyd
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (672): 314-315. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X697589
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REMOVING QOF: THE RISKS
    • REMOVING QOF: THE ALTERNATIVES
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Primary care and bipolar disorder
  • Determining the role of genetic risk scores in symptomatic cancer detection
  • Antibiotic stewardship: where next?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242