This site is intended for healthcare professionals only

DiabetesontheNet Logo

Diabetes &
Primary Care


Share this article
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email
Share on print

How changes to the QOF will affect diabetes care

This journal has charted the importance of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), as well as recording the considerable success that primary care teams have achieved through it (Kenny, 2005). Subtle regional differences in performance between the four nations in the NHS have also been highlighted (Kenny, 2005). Primary care teams have been able to answer any perceived criticism of the quality of their diabetes care by pointing to the high standard of audited data (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 2005; Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2005; NHS Wales, 2005; Scottish Health Statistics, 2005). This article outlines the changes introduced to the QOF for 2006/2007 that are relevant to diabetes care (British Medical Association, 2006b).

As primary care teams approach the end of the second year of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new General Medical Service contract, there is a realisation that the QOF was intended to be a dynamic structure to enable practices to be paid to deliver high-quality care. Reviews were built into the process and were intended to identify clinical indicators that had gained or lost evidence, matters for which the legal status had changed, and items that the NHS no longer wished to purchase (Buckman, 2006). 

Part of the impact of the QOF has been to encourage professionals with an interest in diabetes to apply evidence-based medicine. The first QOF (QOF1; Department of Health, 2004) was based almost entirely on evidence or good practice. To ensure that this principle was maintained, the QOF negotiators appointed the University of Birmingham and the Royal College of General Practitioners to act as independent assessors of all the primary care evidence, both old and new. There was a call to submit evidence for review by 30 May 2005. Five hundred and fourteen submissions were received, across all the clinical indicators, from Government departments, academic institutions, learned societies, patient groups and practices (British Medical Association [BMA], 2006a).

Changes to the diabetes indicators
Primary care teams are currently working to maximise QOF points for the year end (31 March 2006), before turning to the revised QOF (QOF2), which will be assessed at the end of March 2007 (BMA, 2006b; for changes relating to diabetes see Table 1 for key points and Table 2 for fuller details; see Table 3 for a full list of diabetes indicators in QOF2).

From 1 April 2006, the QOF is going to be worth 1000 points. The negotiating parties agreed changes to the QOF, which include several new or revised clinical areas and higher thresholds. One hundred and sixty-six points have been recycled, of which 138 have been allocated to new areas and 28 have been incorporated into existing indicators. The value of each point remains at the levels set out for 2005/2006.

Quality Management and Analysis System (QMAS) reports in England, and their equivalents in the other nations, have shown very high achievement rates of indicators in QOF1 (BMA, 2006a), so it has been agreed to raise the payment threshold from 25 % to 40 % for most indicators in QOF2. Most upper limits have been set at 90 % unless evidence suggests that it is unattainable or inappropriate. 

Ninety-three points are now available for diabetes (Table 3), down from the previous 99. Eight smoking points from the previous diabetes indicators have been consolidated into a total smoking indicator, rather than awarding the same points across five clinical indicators (diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and smoking) as before. Two new points to augment the HbA1c and hypertension clinical targets have been added, recognising the difficulty in achieving these outcomes. In the case of hypertension, the upper payment threshold has been set slightly higher.

Disease registers
An important feature of QOF has been the establishment of disease registers. In the case of diabetes, to achieve the same points as before, practices will now have to stratify their patients with diabetes into type 1 and type 2. Accurate READ coding should help with this exercise. In addition, while insulin use is common to the two types, there are several typical differences, which are outlined in Table 4. It is worth noting that other clinical areas have seen the points diminish for forming such registers.

HbA1c levels
Primary care teams may be surprised to see that the lower indicator for HbA1c levels has gone from 7.4 % to 7.5 %, at a time when many organisations are urging a lowering of HbA1c targets to 7.0 %. There would appear to more pragmatism than science here on the part of the negotiators.

The evidence for the lower HbA1c indicator comes from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), which found few microvascular complications in those with HbA1c below 7.5 % in people with type 1 diabetes (DCCT Research Group, 1993). The authors of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE; formerly the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines on blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes use this to argue for HbA1c levels below 7.5 % in people with type 2 diabetes (NICE, 2002).

Based on the rationale that estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is reported to be a better method than serum creatinine for detecting and monitoring early renal disease – as it takes plasma creatinine, sex, age and weight into consideration – it has been included in diabetes indicator 22. In the long term, eGFR should be easier for people with diabetes to understand because log transformation is not needed to assess change in renal function.

Exception reporting
There have been no changes to the rules around exception reporting. However, there has been some speculation that primary care organisations may publish exception reporting within practices in a primary care trust.

New indicators relevant to diabetes
The process of deciding on the new areas of work to be introduced in QOF2 involved appraising the submitted evidence and then prioritising their clinical importance in primary care. There were 138 points available for new indicators, which were allocated based on supporting evidence (Table 5).

Chronic kidney disease
Diabetes nephropathy is the leading cause of kidney disease in people requiring renal transplant (Gross et al, 2005). In the Western world, type 2 diabetes is the most common condition in people with kidney failure (International Diabetes Federation [IDF], 2006). Primary care teams will recognise that there is considerable overlap between the chronic renal failure registers and their diabetes registers. New indicators for chronic kidney disease are shown in Table 6.

As with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, there will be considerable overlap between diabetes and obesity. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases progressively with the level of obesity (IDF, 2004). Over a 10-year period, relative to people with a BMI <22 kg/m2, those with a BMI >35 kg/m2 are up to 80 times more likely to develop the condition. With a BMI >30 kg/m2, people are up to ten times more likely to get diabetes.

In QOF2, the new 8-point indicator for obesity is:

‘The practice can produce a register of patients aged 16 and over with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 in the previous 15 months.’

Primary care teams may be relieved that they are not being judged on their abilities to reduce the prevalence of obesity. These registers may prove useful, though, if targeted screening for diabetes is proposed by the National Screening Committee, and eventually this indicator may be revised to include waist-to-hip ratio measurements.

For some time it has been recognised that there is an increased incidence of depression in people with diabetes, estimated to be between 11 and 15 % (Anderson et al, 2001). Several trials have shown that depression can be adequately treated in patients with diabetes and depression (Lustman et al, 1998; Lustman et al, 2000). New indicators for depression are shown in Table 7.

NICE (2004) guidance on depression suggests that ‘screening should be undertaken in primary care […] for depression in high-risk groups’ and that ‘screening for depression should include the use of at least two questions concerning mood and interest,’ such as the following.

  • ‘During the last month, have you often been bothered by feeling down, depressed or hopeless?’ 
  • ‘During the last month, have you often been bothered by having little interest or pleasure in doing things?’

Primary care teams will want to examine the guidance carefully and decide how best to assess their patients with diabetes. A mixed strategy of opportunistic screening and systematic application of questionnaires may well be used. A more difficult judgment will be whether to add an antidepressant to the overall pill burden of patients with diabetes.

Changes to the QOF should be carefully scrutinised by primary care teams. They will recognise that there have been subtle but important changes to the indicators for diabetes and other clinical areas. New indicators have been introduced, some of which overlap with the diabetes indicators.

While there has been quite a lot of speculation about what might be in QOF2, the overall impression seems to be one of relief that most of the diabetes clinical indicators remain the same. With a systematic approach to the indicators, most teams should be optimistic of achieving as high levels as were previously attained.

Anderson RJ, Freedland KE, Clouse RE, Lustman PJ (2004) The prevalence of comorbid depression in adults with diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 24(6): 1069–78
British Medical Association (BMA; 2006a) Focus on the Quality and Outcomes Framework 2006. BMA, London. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
British Medical Association (BMA; 2006b) Revisions to the GMS contract, 2006/07. BMA, London. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
Buckman L (2006) GPs and patients will be winners in QOF review. Guidelines in Practice 9(1): 11–6
Department of Health (DoH; 2004) Quality and Outcomes Framework: Guidance. DoH, London. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS; 2005) GP Contract. DHSSPS, Belfast. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (1993) The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine 329(14): 977–86
Gross JL, de Azevedo MJ, Silveiro SP, Canani LH, Caramori ML, Zelmanovitz T (2005) Diabetic nephropathy: diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Diabetes Care 28(1): 164–76
Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC, 2005) Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2004/05. HSCIC, London. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
International Diabetes Federation (IDF; 2004) Diabetes and Obesity: Time to Act. IDF, Brussels
IDF (2006) Diabetes and kidney disease. IDF, Brussels. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
Kenny C (2005) The Quality and Outcomes Framework: Where are we now? Where are we going? Diabetes and Primary Care 7(3): 114–7
Lustman PJ, Freedland KE, Griffith LS, Clouse RE (2000) Fluoxetine for depression in diabetes: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Care 23(5): 618–23
Lustman PJ, Griffith LS, Freedland KE, Kissel SS, Clouse RE (1998) Cognitive behavior therapy for depression in type 2 diabetes mellitus. A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 129(8): 613–21
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE; 2002) Type 2 diabetes – Management of blood glucose. NICE, London. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
NICE (2004) Depression: Management of depression in primary and secondary care. NICE, London. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
NHS Wales (2005) QOF achievement data. NHS Wales, Cardiff. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)
Scottish Health Statistics (2005) Quality and Outcomes Framework. Scottish Health Statistics, Edinburgh. Available at (accessed 07.03.2006)

Share this article
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on whatsapp
Related content
For the latest news and articles

Sign up to all DiabetesontheNet journals

© Copyright Omniamed Communications. All Rights Reserved​
108 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6EU. Registered in the United Kingdom​
Omniamed logo white
DiabetesontheNet Logo
For the latest news and articles

Sign up to all DiabetesontheNet journals


By clicking ‘Subscribe’, you are agreeing that are able to email you periodic newsletters. You may unsubscribe from these at any time. Your info is safe with us and we will never sell or trade your details. For information please review our Privacy Policy.

DiabetesontheNet Logo

This website is for UK healthcare professionals only. To continue, please confirm that you are a UK healthcare professional below.