This site is intended for healthcare professionals only

DiabetesontheNet Logo
×

Diabetes &
Primary Care

Issue:

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

The Quality and Outcomes Framework: Where are we now? Where are we going?

UK general practice recently witnessed the publication of the first set of results from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new General Medical Services contract. In this article, Colin Kenny summarises the results and explains how the QOF may develop in the future.

General practitioners (GPs) in the UK were among the first to manage many aspects of diabetes care in their own practices (Wilkes, 1973; Thorn and Russell, 1973). By the new millennium many practices in the UK were providing systematic diabetes care (Pierce et al, 2000; Kenny et al, 2002). This activity in diabetes and other chronic diseases stretched ahead of what practices were being rewarded for and it impacted negatively on morale (Huby et al, 2002).

It is widely believed that the UK Government chose to invest in primary care for a number of reasons:

  • to encourage evidence-based interventions
  • because primary care is the most cost-effective healthcare sector for investment to achieve positive patient outcomes (Starfield, 2001; Snyder et al, 2003)
  • because UK GPs have an excellent record of achieving targets
  • because there was an urgent need to improve morale among GPs and their practices
  • to reward primary care professionals directly for clinical activity through the new General Medical Services (nGMS) contract.

We now know that, despite initial scepticism (e.g. Shekelle, 2003), the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the nGMS contract has been a considerable success across the ten disease categories in general, and also in the 18 clinical indicators specific to diabetes (Health and Social Care Information Centre [HSCIC], 2005a). The standard of the data achieved shows differences between the four nations in the NHS, but is still an outstanding success. Internationally, no other healthcare organisation has achieved comparable audit standards for diabetes care. UK GPs, through their detailed practice diabetes databases, have effectively become diabetes franchisees and have been financially rewarded, while providing a very cost-effective intervention for the NHS.

QOF data: 2004/2005
The QOF was introduced on 1 April 2004 as part of the nGMS contract. Full tables of results for 2004/2005 from practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have recently been published (HSCIC, 2005a; NHS Wales, 2005; Scottish Health Statistics, 2005; Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 2005; respectively). For England, the results are taken from the Quality Prevalence and Indicator Database (QPID), which in turn draws its data from the national Quality Management Analysis System (QMAS) used to calculate QOF achievement for general practices (HSCIC, 2005b). The published information is based on the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, and was extracted from the database at the end of June 2005 (HSCIC, 2005b).

Disease prevalence data in a selection of the ten QOF clinical domains in the four countries are shown in Table 1. Table 2 outlines the total points achieved overall for each country, as well as in the same four QOF clinical domains.

Resources
To facilitate these results, primary care organisations have invested considerable funds in IT. These organisations have ownership of the computer hardware, but no direct control over the databases, and so to achieve these results many practices have invested practice income in staff and resources. Although participation in the QOF was not compulsory in the nGMS contract, practices realised that non-involvement would mean a loss of about one third of their income – perhaps even making practices unviable (Hadley-Brown, 2005). As such, participation rates were very high (HSCIC, 2005b).

Looking ahead
Practices are now consolidating their data and trying to improve their performances against clinical indicators for another annual round. Suggestions for changes to the diabetes and other clinical indicators are being made to inform the contract negotiations beginning this autumn for implementation in 2006/2007 (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2005). The success of the QOF shows that the UK Government has facilitated an effective intervention in the diabetes population, and although the QOF may be modified, it is unlikely to change substantially. A new Government white paper on primary care is imminent and may change emphasis and ownership of databases (Carvel, 2005).

Uniform interventions
A growing evidence base for diabetes interventions informed the four diabetes National Service Frameworks (NSFs) in the UK (Department of Health, 2001; NHS Scotland, 2002; Welsh Assembly Government, 2002; Diabetes UK Northern Ireland, 2005). There is some evidence for the multifaceted interventions in the nGMS contract (Olivarius et al, 2001; Gaede et al, 2003). However, the softer, patient-focused options in the NSFs were largely ignored by the contract negotiators, who chose mainly pharmaceutical-based interventions, which could be applied in every practice in the UK. The NHS white papers (Secretary of State for Health, 1997; Secretary of State for Scotland, 1997; Secretary of State for Wales, 1998; Department of Health and Social Services, 1999) and subsequent NSFs were presented nationally and seemed to signal a fragmentation of the NHS. In contrast, the negotiators insisted that the nGMS would be the same throughout the four nations in the NHS, and, following the widespread uptake of the QOF, people with diabetes are receiving a uniform set of interventions throughout the UK.

GPs with a special interest in diabetes
Complementing, and running parallel to the nGMS contract has been the concept of GPs with a special interest in diabetes (GPwSIs; DoH, 2003). Primary care trusts have used these practitioners in areas of need, but unlike the almost universal coverage of the QOF, these initiatives have been poorly resourced. Without a model job description or remuneration, these posts are still evolving (Karet, 2005).

Clinical assistants, many of whom are GPs, continue to play an important role in hospital diabetes care. The rewards from the new contract have seen their remuneration fall behind comparable work based in general practice. Ultimately, they may move to work in more intermediate care settings, so as to benefit from the contract as well.

Conclusion
Both types of diabetes represent heterogeneous diseases, which do not respect age, gender or ethnicity and are relentless in their progression.  The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing markedly in the UK, and dramatically in other parts of the world with a different population mix. The diabetes clinical indicators in the QOF of the nGMS contract have provided very cost-effective interventions and have partially contained the costs associated with this epidemic.

People with diabetes deserve to be empowered by healthcare professionals to gain mastery of their condition. They should have their cardio–metabolic risk addressed, and they should be able to move, and be tracked, seamlessly between primary, intermediate and secondary care according to their individual needs and the complexity of the complications which inexorably follow this chronic condition.

Carvel J (2005) GPs face shake-up in white paper. The Guardian, Friday 20 May
Department of Health (DoH; 2001) National Service Framework for Diabetes: Standards. DoH, London
DoH (2003) Guidelines for the appointment of General Practitioners with a Special Interest in the delivery of clinical services: Diabetes. DoH, London
Department of Health and Social Services (1999) Fit for the Future: A New Approach. The Government’s Proposals for the Future of the Health and Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland. Department of Health and Social Services, Belfast
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS; 2005) GP Contract. DHSSPS, Belfast. www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hss/gp_contracts/qof-data.asp (accessed 23.09.2005)
Diabetes UK Northern Ireland (2005) Diabetes in Northern Ireland. Diabetes UK Northern Ireland, Belfast. http://www.diabetes.org.uk/n.ireland/nireland.htm (accessed 23.09.2005)
Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O (2003) Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 348: 383–93
Hadley-Brown M (2005) The QOF: Quality outcomes or just framework. Diabetes & Primary Care 7: 52–54
Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC, 2005a) Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2004/05. HSCIC, London. www.ic.nhs.uk/services/qof/data (accessed 23.09.2005)
HSCIC (2005b). National Quality and Outcomes Framework Statistics for England 2004/05. HSCIC, London.
Huby G, Gerry M, McKinstry B, Porter M, Shaw J, Wrate R (2002) Morale among general practitioners: qualitative study exploring relations between partnership arrangements, personal style, and workload. British Medical Journal 325: 140
Karet B (2005) The evolution of GPwSIs in diabetes: A need for organisation. Diabetes & Primary Care 7: 61–2
Kenny CJ, Pierce M, McGerty S (2002) A survey of diabetes care in general practice in Northern Ireland. Ulster Medical Journal  71: 10–6
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE; 2005) Submission to QoF. NICE, London. www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=qof2005 (accessed 23.09.2005)
NHS Scotland (2002) Scottish Diabetes Framework. www.diabetes.org.uk/scotland/downloads/sdf.pdf (accessed 23.09.2005)
NHS Wales (2005) QOF achievement data. NHS Wales, Cardiff. www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=480&pid=10486 (accessed 23.09.05)
Olivarius NF, Beck-Nielsen H, Andreasen AH, Horder M, Pedersen PA (2001) Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus. British Medical Journal 323: 970–5
Pierce M, Agarwal G, Ridout D (2000) A survey of diabetes care in general practice in England and Wales. British Journal of General Practice 50: 542–5
Scottish Health Statistics (2005) Quality and Outcomes Framework. Scottish Health Statistics, Edinburgh. www.isdscotland.org/isd/info3.jsp?pContentID=3310&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show& (accessed 23.09.05)
Secretary of State for Health (1997) The New NHS: Modern, dependable. The Stationary Office, London
Secretary of State for Scotland (1997) Designed to Care: Renewing the National Health Service in Scotland. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh
Secretary of State for Wales (1998) NHS Wales: putting patients first. Cardiff Stationary Office, Cardiff
Shekelle P (2003) New contract for general practitioners. British Medical Journal 326: 457–8
Snyder JW, Malaskovitz J, Griego J, Persson J, Flatt K (2003) Quality improvement and cost reduction realized by a purchaser through diabetes disease management. Disease Management 6: 233–41
Starfield B (2001) New paradigms for quality in primary care. British Journal of General Practice 51: 303–9
Thorn PA, Russell RG (1973) Diabetic clinics today and tomorrow: mini clinics in general practice. British Medical Journal 2: 534–6
Welsh Assembly Government (2002) The National Service Framework for Diabetes (Wales): Standards. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff
Wilkes JM (1973) Diabetes – a disease for general practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 23: 46–54

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 DiabetesontheNet.com 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.