QOF News

Fat maps? Fat chance.

2008-08-28T12:28:00.003+01:00

It comes to quite something when the best source that I can find for information about QOF analysis comes from GMTV. The big story is the "Fat Map" of the UK apparently produced by Dr Foster and sponsored by Roche. I say apparently but the actual map and report don't seem to feature on the web sites of either.

The data they appear to be using is the QOF obesity register size at PCT level for April 2007 which has been available on this site for ten months now. When you come down to the business rules level this is a measure of the number of patients over sixteen years old who have had a BMI measured (or technically weight measured and BMI calculated) between January 2006 and April 2007 and that BMI was greater than or equal to 30.

A BMI of 30 is not that high these days. For those of you who don't deal with BMIs on a daily basis (basically front line clinicians) Flickr hosts a rather wonderful range of illustrated BMI catagories.

The prevalence has then been calculated by dividing this number by the total registered patient population.

There are thus quite a number of confounding factors.

Firstly and probably most significantly is the enthusiasm of the GP practice for weighing lots of people. If people were not weighed they did not count. For instance a huge patient would not be counted as obese if they did not have a BMI recorded. Getting a high prevalence involved weighing everyone who came through the door who looked like they may have a BMI over 30. There was no incentive to weigh patients with a BMI of less than 30 so it was just not done much - GPs have a pretty good eye for rough BMIs. For this reason even if we could know how many BMIs were measured it would be a bad measure of the obesity prevalence due to the skewed population at the measurement level.

Secondly we have the dodgy denominator. Remember the definition above? It applied only to patients of 16 or over - which is fair enough. BMIs don't really work with children. However to get the prevalence it was divided by the whole population. So if you have a lot of under 16s then your obesity prevalence will tend to be diluted. Similarly if you have a generally aging population then your obesity levels would appear artificially high.

Finally we have areas such as coding which are probably pretty minor.

Wales in general seems to stick out on the map, or at least the bits I could see on news.sky.co.uk Now I don't know a lot about Wales other than what I see on Torchwood but it seems rather odd that the whole of Wales is high (from North to South) and that obesity starts right on the border. Was there a LES or other country specific reason for practices to be incentivised to check BMIs a lot?

So this is a pretty dubious set of statistics on a map. Could it be better? Well perhaps a little. I mentioned the problem of the dodgy denominator above. Is there a better figure that we could use? Certainly there is. Records 22 (recording of smoking status) applies to all patients over 15 and uses that population as its denominator. We could at least correct that error although practice rates of measurement will still be a significant factor. I will try to put the figures together and if Roche or anyone else want to sponsor it they are very welcome!

New Business Rules (v12) for 2008/9

2008-08-12T20:45:00.001+01:00

We are now about a third of the way through the QOF year and I have just come back from my holidays to find that the new version of the QOF business rules has arrived. It is a no more gripping read than it was before and fortunately the changes are fairly minor this year. Most of the obvious changes seem to be in the area of smoking - both the clinical area and Records 22. This is the area that has received most attention this year - at least in terms of the coding areas. Just a reminder of what the guidance says:

The guidance has also been updated and in particular we would draw your attention to amendment to non-smokers and ex-smokers. Non-smokers should be recorded as such up until the age of 25 while the smoking status of ex-smokers should be for 3 years and only thereafter if their smoking status changes.

Now this has been implemented almost exactly as you see it here (for the one problem see below). Arguably there is a degree of ambiguity, and a missing bracket, in the way that the rule about three years is written but I am sure that the system suppliers can be relied on to implement it sanely. There is, however, an interesting anomaly in the way that the text above specifies the criteria. If a young man were never to have smoked by the age of 24 this would still have to be coded on an annual basis. If, however he had smoked when he was 15 and then became an ex smoker this would only have to be recorded from the ages of 18 - 20 and can then be stopped. Ex-teenage smokers are thus less work than those who have never smoked.

There are not that many young people in the smoking clinical indicators - they just don't feature in the chronic diseases that much with the possible exception of asthma and for asthmatics the smoking indicator only starts at age 20 (there is another indicator for younger asthmatics at Asthma 3). However around 80% of the practice population is also covered in Records 22, including all of the 18-25 year olds. For a typical practice this represents about 4742 patients. There are only 11 points here, around £1370 equivalent to just 58 pence for each patient in the "scoring zone" from 40-90%. It is likely that annually chasing young people who don't often attend the surgery to check that they have not started smoking will simply be uneconomic. That is not to say that nobody will do it though. For 2006/7 practices achieved 82% overall.

The recording of ex smokers for three years is however rather fragile. This may cause problems in the future although the effect should be limited this year. The problem is that the rules look only at the most recent codes and this could trip practices up. If a patient had given up smoking you could record this in years one, two and three. They would then not need a record again - ever. However if you recorded in years one, two and three - missed year four and then recorded again in year five another code would be needed in year six. The rules would see the code in year five and missed the previous year and not the three codes in the years before.

Now this is not really the fault of the rules writers. The structure of the rules is not that flexible and they have done their best within these limits. The rules have a very linear structure and there is no option for looping or iteration. The designers of QOF at the DH and the BMA are getting more ambitious with much more complex targets; the smoking rules are probably the most complex in the whole of the framework so far. Many people have big plans for new QOF areas in the future and it may be time to look at an overhaul of the way the rules are set and the systems that implement them. We are likely to see an increasing number of problems of this nature unless ambitions are reigned in a bit - and personally I don't see that happening.

Who has two?

2008-07-03T08:56:00.003+01:00

This morning Ben Bradshaw announced in an interview with the BBC News website that he had found a practice with only two patients. It is, apparently, in Southern England.

Well I don't know who it is either. This database only lists practices with QOF returns and it contains only nine practices in England with fewer than 300 patients at at April 2007. Of these all are specialist. Most are run by PCTs as access clinics - often these are catering to the homeless or others who may find it difficult to register with conventional practices. These practices will run under PMS contracts which don't attract the MPIG that Mr Bradshaw doesn't like. There are two other specialist practices, one attached to a very large nursing home and another to a school, but both of these latter two have over 150 patients.

So the mystery of the practice with two patients remains.

David Cameron adds some flesh

2008-06-29T19:03:00.004+01:00

Nearly a year and a half ago I wrote here about the Conservative "Outcomes Not Targets". Well we have a bit more flesh on the bones with the release of the green paper "Delivering some of the best health in Europe".

Now obviously I come at this from a certain angle. What does it mean for GPs and especially QOF? Well the answer is initially not very much. QOF only gets a single mention in the whole of the Green Paper and even then it is only in passing. Most of the examples related to hospital care. We do get a feeling for the way that thinking is going though.

The paper acknowledges that outcomes are difficult to measure in any objective way and at individual patient level it is almost impossible. There are public health and systematic outcome targets stated in the paper but at the individual patient level the big thing is Patient Reported Outcome Measures or PROMs. It would be over simplistic o liken these to the little cards you get in hotel bedrooms with a chance of winning a free holiday but that would not be a bad place to start thinking about them. How these are to be translated into cash incentives is not clear but this is widely used in industry. When I bought a new car recently the salesman explained that much of their commission was based on these things and they would be very grateful if I could hold back my British reserve and go for excellent rather than very good. They had helpfully laminated an example with the excellent column highlighted. Similar things seem to be happening in education.

The other big thing is that the information will be freely available in a pretty raw form for others to turn into services to patients.

Our policy generates significant value for the NHS that far outweighs any potential cost implications. The NHS will not be expected to do anything other than collect, collate and publish the required information. Experience in other areas and other countries – such as crime mapping in the US – shows that third parties like Dr Foster, Google and others can creatively use this data and turn it into products that are available to patients and commissioners at zero cost to the user.

Well that is why I try to do here! The phrasing certainly plays down the difficulty, complexity and quantity of the work that the NHS will have to do but it is also true that there are several such mechanisms already in place. A lot of data is already generated and opening this up would be very welcome. This struck a chord when reading about suggested architectures for public information. In that architecture the analysis layer can be repeated many times but this seems a pretty good way to open public data to imaginative analysis. This is much more the US model where the government is forbidden from owning copyright on anything coupled with a rather more permissive freedom of information legislation.

But with all of these thing I like to see specifics. There are lots of specific examples in the Green Paper of problems with the target regime. I would love to see just one worked example of a PROM and its consequences for the provider. Another year perhaps?

Supporting Surgeries

2008-05-19T10:59:00.000+01:00

If there is one thing that QOF has taught us it is that most GPs respond to a challenge. In the first year the government was surpised at the levels of achievement seen, although this was largely a repeat of the situation with Item of Service payments in the 1992 contract. GPs it seem, will do what is required to meet the contract.

We may have met our match, however. When the requirement is largely that you are not a GP but a large corporation it is an impossible target to meet. With hundreds of individual and different contracts it also become impossible to collect consistent statistics and monitor the performance of the corporate clinics - just when we seemed to be getting started on that problem.

We have seen this already with independent treatment centres. For years there was a persistent rumour of poor outcomes from these centres but no good figures to back these rumours up. There is some data now which suggests that there is little difference in outcome from NHS centres but nobody benefited from a five year delay in collecting the statistics.

We risk a distraction of GPs from the patient sitting in front of them and their needs by the central declaration of needs and solutions from central government. Anything else is a risk to the patients in primary care. This is why I support the Support Your Surgery campain.

Pretty Charts

2008-05-18T21:29:00.003+01:00

Since the new indicators appeared on the site last September the chart of prevalence on the practices page has been pretty awful. It was almost impossible to read the key at the bottom. This was a major limitation of the charting app I was using.

Well now there is something new. Thanks to the rather wonderful Fusion Charts there are now simple and clear charts. The downside is that they do need flash. However the way they work means it will be much easier to add new charts to the site in the future without a huge amount of extra work for the server to do.

Enjoy.

QOF changes

2008-04-09T23:12:00.002+01:00

A couple of weeks ago the BMA issued its guidance on the QOF changes for this year. Basically some organisational areas were cut and the points transferred to two new areas to be based on surveys of patients.

The survey questions seem likely to be very similar, if not identical, to those asked about appointment booking in the 2007 patient survey.

As we have some data to go on, for England at least, the effect of the changes can be modelled at practice level. In fact I have done this for all practices in the UK, simply the results are likely to be less reliable outside England. In particular the square rooting of the COPD prevalence is based on the English average - slightly overestimating losses outside England.

To find the data for individual practices just use the search or browse pages to find the practice and then select from the menu on the left side.

Exception reporting (again)

2008-04-06T22:01:00.002+01:00

The beast of exception reporting is rearing its head once again, this time in an article in the Health Service Journal (registration required) and in an editorial. What is being looked at here is raw practice data, similar to that produced routinely in Scotland without very much statistical analysis.

Helpfully there are some selected practice level details published by HSJ (5.6Mb Excel) and a summary at PCT level (PDF). In the articles this has been looked at in a journalistic way by finding the extremes and putting them in the headlines (and of course the blogging style is gross generalisation!). Simple things like the standard deviations are essential to give some idea of whether these extremes are the result of chance or other factors. For instance if we measured the height of all GPs we would be surprised if the tallest were ten times as tall as the average. However if we measured the number of suits owned it would be less surprising.

For a start I have looked at a box/whisker plot. In these the box contains the middle 50% of practices and the whiskers contain most of the rest with outliers plotted individually. We see from this that most practices are within quite small ranges.

I have written quite a lot about exception reporting. Analysis is difficult due to multitude of potential reasons for exceptions. We do not see any breakdown on the reason for exceptions in these statistics. QMAS collects the reasons to some extent, and this is visible at practice and PCT level. Although practices with high list growth are removed practices with high list turnover remain in the table. As new patients are automatically excepted this could have a significant effect on the data.

It is difficult to draw any conclusions. That would make the editorial a little dull though.

Many GPs will have made countless calls, sent innumerable letters, to try to goad their wayward patients to face up to their health risks. But the suspicion must remain that many patients have to all intents been dumped out of the NHS; the GP has given up on them, and too many PCTs are failing to bring these patients back.

I would suggest quite the opposite. These patients have given up on the GP and treatment. It is the place of the health service to inform and not to coerce. You can only try so hard. What is suggested is what has been described as a tyranny of health. The words goad and wayward suggest an extremely paternalistic view of the healthcare system. We can look back on the removal of patients from practice list for failure to comply with previous targets and are thankful that exception reporting has taken us away from there. We must not go back.

Updated 8th April

I have updated the boxplots with better ones (see the comment below). I should probably just leave the defaults on my stats package! There are quite a lot of points plotted but it is important to remember that there are around 8000 practices being plotted here. Even 1% of practices represents eighty of them.

QOF changes for 2008/9

2008-03-30T21:08:00.001+01:00

The BMA has released details of the changes to QOF targets for the year 2008-9. Actually this is more a summary of where the changes are as the detailed guidance is not yet out, and it is in the detail that the interesting details are located.

The headline is probably the removal of fifty eight and a half points largely from the organisational domain but five points have also been take from the COPD spirometry measurement section. The spirometry has also been made more explicit in asking for post bronchodilator spirometry.

There are some other minor changes. They are worth knowing early because they may be difficult to catch up with later in the year. There is now a requirement to refer all patients with stroke or TIA within one month of diagnosis. Along with the spirometry changes this will apply to new diagnoses from the first of April 2008. The reference date for ECG investigation in atrial fibrillation has also been moved to the same date.

One of the changes with widest effect may be the changes to the smoking area - particularly as it affects around one in five patients. As it stands this refers only to the clinical area on smoking which refers to those with diabetes, cardiovascular and lung disease. Patients with psychotic and bipolar disease have now been added to this area (probably a drop in the ocean) and the criteria have changed. Currently if a person had never smoked then you didn't have to ask them again. If they had ever smoked they needed to be asked annually. Now all patients under 27 need to be asked annually and you can stop asking those 27 and over who have never smoked or have not smoked for over three years. My sympathies go to whoever has to write the business rules for that one.

In practical terms this is likely to mean fewer patients needing coding over the course of the year as there are few patients under 27 years old on the chronic disease registers. The BMA guidance seems to suggest that there is to be no change to the organisational smoking indicators which apply to the whole of the practice population over 15 years old. As it stands it would appear that the old rules (if they have ever smoked then you need to ask annually) still apply to RECORDS 22. This would seem to be an odd situation, but I am sure that they have spotted it already!

Finally prevalence day is being moved to March 31st from next year which makes a lot more sense. It takes seconds to do the calculation on a computer and allowing six weeks turned out to be overkill.

Update 1st April

A Department of Health letter landed on my desk today confirming that the smoking rules apply to both the clinical and organisational sections.

Surgery search improved

2008-03-26T22:13:00.003Z

I have changed the search system slightly to (hopefully) give better results. Previously you could use wildcards e.g. Car* would give Carlisle and Cardiff. This was hardly ever used and the search tended to give very long lists of unhelpful results.

You now can't use wildcards but the results should be better. For more general QOF queries over many web sites the Google search is still there. It searches on selected QOF related sites without all of the stuff about GnuCash and Hebrew characters you tend to get on a full Google search.

The vote is out

2008-03-07T11:53:00.002Z

The GPC announced the result last week of the poll of GP opinions on the two possible contract options from April. The summary is basically that GPs are not happy but have voted for option A as the least worst of a bad bunch. Lots about this in the media although some have portrayed it as an agreement to do extended hours. It is not. This was about what will be taken away from practices. Whether practices offer extended ours will depend on the DES specification. That judgement will be made individually by the 8000 odd practices in England and in similar ways across the rest of the UK and Ireland.

In practical terms for this website it means that the loss calculation is no longer relevant as it only applied to the potential imposition. There is simply not enough data available to calculate the loss for the current proposals. The DES calculator is still running with the best information that is coming out in an official form. You can find a link to this in the left hand menu on the practice summary page for each practice. This applies to England only as there was no comparable patient survey in the other countries, or at least not one that I am aware of.

I am taking the link to the loss calculator off the practice pages to avoid confusion. The direct URL should work for the foreseeable future but if you want or need access to the data then drop me a line.

Six million people can be wrong

2008-02-24T21:00:00.001Z

There are a lot of statistics bouncing around about extended hours. One that keeps coming up is the demand of six million patients for them. Here we have no less a figure than the Secretary of State for Health answering a question in parliament.

About 6 million people in our patients survey said that they want improved access to their GP in the evenings and on Saturdays, which is why we are seeking to reach a negotiated settlement with the BMA.

The survey he seems to be talking about here is the 2007 GP patient survey. Looking at the results things are not quite as clear as they might seem from the above answer. For a start six million people did not say anything of the sort. There were not even six million in the survey. The survey was only sent to 4.7 million people and less than half of them (2.3 million) sent it back. The people sent surveys were picked largely from those that had been to their GP in the previous six months.

So where does this figure of six million come from? Well out of those who replied 16% said that they were, in some way, dissatisfied with opening hours. Take that figure together with the population of England over 18 (just shy of 40 million) - multiply and you get a figure of around around about six million. Clearly what Mr Johnson intended to say was that if the whole adult population had been asked and they all replied he believed that six million people would say that.

Now that is a pretty rotten bit of statistical conjecture. It assumes that all of those people who did not reply would think the same way as those who did. Of course it may be they did not reply because they had not particular views. Even more ambitiously it assumes that that group that were not polled - people who had not seen their GP recently - had identical views.

Worse still it ignores the fact that only ten per cent were able to say in what way they were unhappy with the opening hours (lunchtimes, evenings etc). Only 208,000 asked for increases outside of the usual 8-6.30 Monday to Friday - about 9% of the total responses. It is difficult to call this a massive pressure. Even with the simplistic extrapolation this would only be 3.6 million. The pie chart graphically shows the responses (click on it to enlarge).

Its not just me saying this. When you pay 11 million pounds for a survey MORI gives you some quite detailed analysis - in this case 111 pages (2.4Mb) of it. So what do the experts have to say?

When interpreting the findings, it is important to remember that the results are based on a sample of patients registered with a GP in England who responded to the survey, and not the entire population of England.

The vast majority of patients (84%) say they are satisfied with the hours their GP practice was open during the last six months, while the remaining 16% say they are dissatisfied with the opening hours.

What do we know for sure then? Simply there is some demand for extended hours, but not a lot. You can read the MORI report for some detailed socioeconomic breakdown of the figures. What is quite clear though is the figure of six million people is definitely wrong.

Changes to Extended Hours DES

2008-02-13T19:00:00.002Z

In the fast(ish) moving world of GP contract negotiations the finances of the extended hours DES have changed again. In his latest letter to the profession Lawrence Buckman has announce an increase in the rate of payment from £2.80 to £2.95 per patient for extended hours. It has also been clarified that the survey will be in QOF and not part of the extended hours DES

This is in general good news - there is more cash for providing extended hours under the DES although and this is surprisingly substantial for many practices. I have updated the extended hours calculator which can be accessed from left hand menu the practice pages.

I have also corrected a bug which overestimated the hours required for about one in six practices. Sorry about that and thanks to the eagle eyed reader who spotted it.

The contents of the DES are still far from fixed as you can see here and here.

Questions in the House

2008-02-07T12:32:00.000Z

Perhaps an old fashioned phrase to describe a significant event but there have been questions in Parliament about the QOF. At health questions this week the Alan Johnson defended of putting cash into extended hours rather than clinical areas. He accused the BMA of propaganda in suggesting the reverse. That suggestion seems to have produced a sharp intake of breath from the Honorouable Members. Ultimately though, like most parliamentary answers, there is more heat than light here.

Overextended?

2008-02-03T23:00:00.000Z

The changes to the QOF detailed on this blog and the detailed calculations of losses under the proposed contract imposition are only a relatively small part of the current issues between GPs and the government. The central issue from Numbers 10's point of view appears to be extended hours. If the governments proposals are accepted then a Directed Enhanced Service will be commissioned for these extended hours. The politics are complex an I would direct the interested reader to Lawrence Buckman's letter to the profession.

The fundamental drive of the DES is that there should be 30 minutes of extra time per one thousand patients on the list to be delivered in 90 blocks in the evening or weekends or 60 minutes in the mornings. We are, however on shifting sands here. A new provision brought in at the end of January is that there should be no time when reception is closed during the core hours. Any reception close would have to be replaced with clinical time. The extended hours would be agreed with the PCT and based on the results of the GP Patient Survey, a national survey of patients about primary care.

The results of the patient survey have been published and so the figures can be used to work out an estimate of the impact of the DES. What I have done on this site is to calculate the amount of time required from each practice and then allocate those hours according to the result of the survey. Thus is 51% wanted weekend access and 49% evenings and there were two sessions to allocate then there would be one to each. If there was only one it would go to the weekend. A fairly simple formula but it does make it easy to automate. The ultimate detail is in the source code.

The results can be seen on the practice pages. The summary is that it is not the couple of hours a week that many imagined. 55% of practices will be required to produce three hours or over on a Saturday. Around 160 practices would also be doing Sundays under this formula. Interestingly only eight practices would be required to provide early morning surgeries.

Some of the problems with the current proposals are also seen. It is widely reported that simultaneous surgeries would not be permitted (i.e. you could not supply three hours of time by two GPs working for 90 minutes simultaneously). One of the effects of this rule is that opening hours for smaller practices will be considerably less than those for larger practices. Under this rule two practices would be open from 8am on Saturday until half past midnight on Sunday morning. Clearly this is absurd.

I will try to keep the model updated with changes, but there remains a lack of detail in these proposals, and much of the detail that does exist may not be that practical. Obviously if anyone from the government side of negotiations knows better then the email address is below!

Who loses what?

2008-01-27T18:09:00.000Z

As many of you are probably aware the site has had information about the potential loss of cash to practices under the government's proposed imposed changes to the QOF in England. If you have not seen this you can click on the link on the left of each of the practice pages. There is also table of the changes effects at PCT level.

Of course now that we have these statistics we can look at the breakdown a little. As I have said before the threshold changes will mostly affect those who have had most problems in meeting the targets. The practices that have tended to have lower score have tended to be those in more deprived areas. A reasonable hypothesis would be that more deprived practices tend to loose out more.

We can go onto test this. Helpfully the deprivation index for most practices was published as part of last year's GP patient survey. We can put all of this together in a spreadsheet and work out the loss per patient for the threshold changes and overall for whole set of changes. Not difficult as we have practice list size from the QOF data as well.

As it turns out there is a correlation between the deprivation and the cash lost through threshold changes at practice level. For the mathematically minded the correlation is 0.13 - not particularly strong but it is there. In practical terms the thousand least deprived practices are to loose 62 pence per patient whilst the thousand most deprived practice will loose 84 pence per patient - a difference of 12 pence. For a "typical" practice of 5891 patient this works out at £1,287 per year between the most and least deprived practices.

This all looks pretty bleak but there is another factor that works against this effect. The removed points take more from practices that have gained all of these points in the past. Statistically these tended to be practices in the least deprived areas. If we bring in the removed points then the effect almost disappears. The correlation drops to 0.03 which is small enough to be ignored.

So balance is restored - whether by luck or judgement! It does however give some idea of the less obvious effects of changes to QOF.

Less cash for QOF says HMG

2008-01-10T13:00:00.000Z

It has been a busy few weeks. Just as I was starting to digest a report suggesting the development of the QOF then the negotiations for changes to next year's GMS came crashing to a halt. The report is still worth reading, if only for the summary of research done with QOF data thus far.

There is a pretty good summary of the situation in a letter from Laurence Buckman - chair of the GPC which I would recommend reading. In summary, for the impatient, the government (only in England for now) is imposing changes to the contract to move cash from QOF and Choose & Book and put it towards increased hours of availability. This, we are told, its only priority for primary care this year. Arguably this is a move from quality to quantity

As far as QOF is concerned several indicators are to be removed taking with them a total of sixty points.

Holistic points (20 of them) - points for consistency - all gone
Records 3 (1 point) - communication with out of hours service
Education 4 (3 points) - induction training for new staff
Management 2 (1 point) - computer back up
Management 4 (1 point) - instrument sterilisation to national standards
Management 6 (2 points) - job description for all new posts
Management 10 (2 points) - employee procedure manual (absence, bulling etc)
Medicines 4 (3 points) - repeat prescriptions in 72 hours - 48 hour target remains
Medicines 11 (7 points) - medication review for patients on four or more medications (review for all patients remains)
CS 5 (2 points) - there is a system for inform women of smear results
CHD 12 (7 points), Stroke 10 (2 points), DM 18 (3 points) and COPD 8 (six points) - flu jabs in high risk groups

As there are 1000 points in the QOF a rather obvious bit of maths shows a 6% drop already. There is more, however. Initially the scoring area for each of the indicators started at 25%. This was increased two years ago to 40% and this new imposition will increase it to 50%. The top thresholds for payment will also be increased to something around the mean of current achievement. This second part is likely to be more significant for most practices. Pretty much by definition half of practice would be expected not to hit this higher threshold.

The effect of all this remains to be seen. We already know that exception reporting tends to be reactive - i.e. there is more exception reporting when below the threshold than above it. This is largely because practices stop reporting when they get over the threshold. It would not be unreasonable to expect a bit of an explosion in exception reporting with these changes. Of course there will almost certainly some increase in achievement but the extent is uncertain.

We can use the data we already have to try to model the effect of these changes - and apply them to last 2006/7 data although with the caveat above. This should be online in the next day or so.

Welsh data now online

2007-12-17T13:46:00.000Z

The QOF data for Wales in 2006/7 is now available. It actually came out about six weeks ago but I missed it at the time and heard via a reader last week.

This completes the data for 2006/7 although I do still need to update the downloads section of the site over the next couple of days.

What's the point?

2007-11-24T21:28:00.000Z

A little nihilistic maybe as questions go but when applied to QOF it would be nice to think that all this effort is doing the patients good. After all paying GPs and keeping administrators gainfully employed is all very well but it would be nice to think that it was actually achieving some health outcome.

Well there is, as yet, very little evidence of actual improvements in patients outcomes and at least some evidence of very little improvement. It is simply too early to say for sure. An article in this weeks BMJ (subscription required outside of NHS) goes rather further and suggests that harm may actually coming about because of the targets.

The quality and outcomes framework diminishes the responsibility of doctors to think, to the potential detriment of patients, and encourages a focus on points scored, threshold met, and income generated.

Pretty severe stuff but it is a feeling anecdotally shared by a reasonable number of GPs and indeed some patients (not suitable for those offended by swearing). Indeed there are quite a number of points made that I would broadly agree with. There are weaknesses in the approach of QOF, in particular in the application of treatment to groups rather than individual circumstance, although that is a problem Evidence Based Medicine has been struggling with for years - although to describe the QOF as fully evidence based is to rather push the definition.

This debate has some time to run.

Exception reporting in England - all new!

2007-11-11T22:14:00.000Z

In all of the general excitement(!) of the release of the 2006/7 QOF data it would be quite easy to miss the QOF exception bulletin produced by the Information Centre for England for the same year. Not perhaps the most gripping of documents but very useful none the less. It is rather dry with plenty of statistics but relatively little comment and no exploration of the reasons behind individual indicators. If you are not familiar with exception reporting in QOF it may be worth looking back at past exception articles.

I am not going to repeat any of the data there, rather to try to provide a little background to help understand what is going on. Page 11 (and to their credit the page numbered 11 is also the 11th page of the PDF - certainly not universal) shows a table of the top ten excepted indicators. There is also the bottom ten but I will concentrate, as I imagine most people will, on the highest figures.

Top of the list is CKD 3 (CKD and hypertension with BP less than 140/85) which has an exception rate of nearly 30%. The equivalent indicator for hypertension alone (BP5) does not even reach the top ten. What is going on here? Well firstly hypertension is very difficult to control in kidney disease so maximum tolerated can quite easily be reached. There is, however, a bigger and more technical issue. Following diagnosis of a condition a patient is automatically excepted for the next nine months if they don't meet the target. This was a new indicator this year and was not really a commonly made diagnosis before. With a simple assumption that practices started work on this QOF a year before (April 2006) then three quarters of the patients could have been excepted if they did not hit the target ( 9/12 ). Suddenly 30% seems fairly good. We can expect to see this drop next year.

Next is CHD 10 (beta blockers in CHD) which has always had a high exception reporting component. Rises a bit this year may be due to the advice that beta blockers are not much use after a year following a heart attack. They are also used much less first line for hypertension than previous due to new research. QOF is looking a bit dated here. Expect a rise again next year.

At third is AF 02 (ECG to diagnose atrial fibrillation) at 21%. Once again this indicator is for quite a short period - looking back over a year. Thus in this case 25% could be excepted automatically. Still fairly high though.

The timescale issue is also true of Asthma 8 (reversibility) at 20%, Stroke 11 (referred for investigation) at 18% and Dep 2 (depression scoring) at 17%. Again these only apply since first of April 2006.

MH 6 (comprehensive care plan) actually seems quite low at 17% due to the mental health register containing everyone who has ever had a psychosis or bipolar disorder - whether they still have the condition or not. MH 9 (annual review) is much the same at 15%.

Finally in the top ten is Epilepsy 8 (fit free for a year) at 17%. This reflects the difficulty in controlling some forms of epilepsy combined with a general lack of problem seen by some patients with occasional fits.

What is interesting is that only Epilepsy and beta blocker indicators have some clinical relevance in the exception reporting. All of the others (eight out of ten) say more about the business rules and the administrative nature of the indicator rather than patients or practices. So the take home message has to be don't place too much importance on exception reporting rates.

English data now online

2007-10-19T09:29:00.000+01:00

The English data is now on the QOF database joining the Scottish and Northern Ireland data which has also been tidied up a little. The English data was a little delayed by the postal strike eventually arrived safely.

There are a couple of "virtual" indicators, largely relating to prevalence. I have created two depression indicators relating to the prevalence of people requiring screening for depression and those who have a history of depression recorded in the past. I would avoid putting too much weight on the latter as historical coding may be really quite variable between practices. In fact as practices were not specifically working towards these virtual indicators they should all be used with some caution.

I have also been asked about smoking prevalence. There is therefore a virtual indicator here too. Here it relates to the number of smokers amongst those covered by the smoking area (those with CHD, LVD, stroke, asthma, COPD and hypertension) who have been asked. This is not the only way to do it and is purely a judgement call on my part. In particular it may not correlate with some of the "official" registers and is not the one used for payment.

You may also notice that I do not put prevalence information for the palliative care domain on the main prevalence list. For one thing this prevalence is not used for payment. Secondly the numbers are generally so small as to be unreliable and thirdly they are so small they are suppressed for confidentiality reasons in many cases by the departments of health.

There are about half a dozen English practices without names or addresses. There was not a comprehensive look up table included with the English data this time so I have used several different sources. I will try to correct these in time.

Finally we are still awaiting the Welsh data. I have heard nothing official but will keep asking!

Resources for Primary Care Research

2007-10-06T21:37:00.000+01:00

I have had a few emails over the last few months about using QOF data for research and trying to break down some of the data. Unfortunately QOF is quite limited in what can be divined about individual patient treatment. There is a little more potential for breaking down populations with some of the composite registers this year but things are still pretty limited.

For those looking at used primary care data there is an excellent report on all of the sources of primary care data available. A user’s guide to data collected in primary care in England is a summary of all of the data sources, including QOF, with details of their uses and limitations. It is published by the Eastern Region Public Health Laboratory - one of the rather unsung chain of public health laboratories.

This has to be essential reading for anyone conducting or even contemplating doing research or analysis on primary care data. I can't actually see that a printed version is available or I would get a copy for my bookshelf - but get it on your computer now!

UK Prevalence Data

2007-10-03T20:33:00.000+01:00

Although we don't have full practice level data for Wales and England yet there is some national level data. We can work out prevalence in all four of the countries and for the UK as a whole. They are listed below. Smoking is not in the table as it is not listed at the national level but should be available when the practice level data comes through.

On the subject of practice level data there is some more information on the information centre website. They are planning to send out CDs so I will apply for one. Unfortunately there is a postal strike over the next week which may affect delivery somewhat. There should certainly be some demand. The 2006 full data database has been downloaded from this site over eight hundred times.

No news from Wales as yet.

	England	Scotland	N Ireland	Wales	UK
Asthma	5.78%	5.48%	5.75%	6.53%	5.79%
Atrial fibrillation	1.29%	1.27%	1.25%	1.61%	1.30%
Cancer	0.91%	0.92%	0.79%	0.93%	0.91%
Chronic kidney disease	2.39%	1.82%	2.44%	2.28%	2.34%
COPD	1.43%	1.86%	1.53%	1.94%	1.49%
Coronary heart disease	3.54%	4.55%	4.18%	4.28%	3.67%
Dementia	0.40%	0.55%	0.52%	0.42%	0.41%
Depression Screening		7.24%	7.50%	7.56%	7.39%
Depression Ever		6.25%	6.13%	7.27%	6.55%
Diabetes mellitus	3.66%	3.52%	3.17%	4.21%	3.66%
Epilepsy	0.60%	0.72%	0.74%	0.73%	0.62%
Heart failure	0.78%	0.88%	0.81%	0.51%	0.78%
Hypertension	12.51%	12.61%	11.68%	14.26%	12.58%
Hypothyroid	2.55%	3.14%	2.90%	3.13%	2.63%
Learning disabilities	0.26%	0.41%	0.32%	0.30%	0.28%
Mental health	0.71%	0.79%	0.75%	0.72%	0.72%
Obesity	7.42%	7.01%	8.38%	9.64%	7.53%
Palliative care	0.09%	0.10%		0.10%	0.10%
Stroke and TIA	1.61%	1.97%	1.62%	1.97%	1.66%

Scottish and Irish data ... and that's it.

2007-09-30T16:39:00.000+01:00

The data for Scotland and Northern Ireland was released last Monday and is now on the site. It has been a little more awkward uploading the data this year due to the changes in the areas and the appearance of areas without prevalences (palliative care) and depression having two different prevalences. I hope this makes some sense when viewing the data but nothing is set in stone and bright ideas welcome!

Wales also released some data this week but this did not go down to practice level and is therefore not particularly useful for many purposes. The statistical release was described as release one so there may be more although the site also suggests that there will not be an update for a further year. I am enquiring about further data.

Even more oddly is the English data. The Information Centre has spreadsheets of data at national, SHA and PCT level but not practice level. Practice level data is available but only one practice at a time through their own web interface. I have emailed them asking about spreadsheets but have not year heard back. In fairness they were probably quite busy on Friday.

I will keep you informed about their replies.

New Business Rules (v10)

2007-09-15T22:45:00.000+01:00

There is presumably some schedule behind the production of new business rules for QOF. These are the rules that govern the data extraction from practice systems and are negotiated across all four countries. For this reason they tend to be a bit of a camel.They pop up every six months or so, and the version numbers seem to increase by 0.5 each time. Counter intuitively it is the ones ending in .5 that are the big ones but with version ten of the business rules being recently released what is new?

Well not a lot. This has its downsides. Mental health is still a bit of a mess with its Hotel California register (once you are on it you can never leave). For the most part this will be something of a relief to practices who don't fancy changing all of their codes again.

There are a few changes worth noting. Firstly smoking exception codes have disappeared, but only for Records 22. The exception codes (for informed dissent and unsuitability) are still there for high risk groups counted in the smoking indicators.

Also in relation to smoking patients under 20 with asthma are no longer in the high risk group. I don't know why, especially as patients of that age with diabetes, heart disease or strokes are still in there, but there you go.

More important changes have been made to dementia assessment. There is now a specific code for annual review ( 6AB ) and the old, vaguer, codes no longer count.

In a similar vein the old LVD exception codes no longer apply (those starting 9h1 ) and have been superseded with 9hH codes.

My suggested action plan for practices would be

Check the review codes for dementia (especially on templates) since April and make sure they are 6AB
Check the exception codes for heart failure (templates again) and make sure you are using 9hH codes

Happy coding!