Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GPs split over dementia diagnosis scheme

Despite misgivings, more than 40% of GPs are preparing to sign up for the dementia diagnosis incentive scheme. Caroline Price finds out why

Dementia £55 diagnosis - online

When NHS England announced it would pay GPs £55 for each additional diagnosis of dementia, it probably never imagined the widespread condemnation the idea would provoke.

Leading GPs branded the scheme – first revealed by Pulse in October – as an ‘ethical travesty’, accusing NHS England of bribing doctors in order to meet Government targets for dementia diagnoses in the run-up to the election.

Patient groups and charities, including Dementia UK, were quick to raise their own concerns, questioning whether a financial incentive is necessary for GPs to diagnose. 

Practices had until 17 November to sign up – later extended by two weeks by NHS England. But Pulse can reveal that – despite concerns – a significant proportion have signed up to the scheme.

In fact, more than 40% of nearly 500 respondents to a Pulse GP survey say they have or will sign up, with some arguing that, although it is unethical, it won’t change their practice, and others saying they support it.

The national enhanced service – dubbed the ‘Dementia Identification Scheme’ – will pay GPs £55 for each additional dementia diagnosis if they show a net increase in cases recorded on their practice register between October and the end of March next year.

NHS England insists the scheme has been introduced to ensure GPs have the resources to make a diagnosis and offer patients the appropriate follow-up.

But Pulse’s survey found two-thirds of GPs (66%) believe the enhanced service is unethical, with a quarter (27%) even saying patients have raised concerns about it.

Dangerous precedent

GP critics warn the policy has ‘broken new ground in the GP contract’ and sets a ‘dangerous precedent’ in linking payments directly to diagnosis, potentially undermining the ‘basis of trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship’.

However, many GPs say they are still taking part because they feel they cannot turn down the potential to earn much-needed practice income.

Dr Peter Swinyard, chair of the Family Doctor Association, says his practice is signing up because, despite being ‘deeply cynical’, the partners feel they have ‘to grasp every available bit of income’.

‘The public may think we diagnose something just for the money’

Dr Simon Ruffle, a GP in Reading

He says: ‘With the lack of resources coming into general practice, you have to go for every last penny which is available.

‘We’re not going to change our practice because of it. But if there are people who get diagnosed properly with dementia during that time then so be it, we will take the £55.’

Dr Simon Ruffle, a GP in Reading, agrees, saying that while the GPs in his practice are unhappy about the scheme, they did not feel able to turn down the extra money.

Dr Ruffle tells Pulse: ‘Making payments linked to diagnosing conditions in patients seems wrong and open to abuse [and] the public may think we diagnose something just for the money.’

But he adds: ‘We have signed up to the scheme as our funding is continuing to be outstripped by wages, expenses, pension and national insurance payments. Whatever little extra money we can get into the practice helps us maintain our staff welfare and wages.’

Dr Stephanie de Giorgio’s practice in Deal, Kent, is taking a different approach; it will send any payment it receives as a result of new diagnoses to a local dementia day care service.

Dr de Giorgio tells Pulse: ‘We felt the scheme was wrong, we felt it was unethical. So to make a point, we said we would sign up to it, but give away the money to where it is actually is needed – that is, in providing care and support for people with dementia and offering respite for their carers.’

But Pulse has found that some GPs believe that the payment reflects the work involved in making new diagnoses and that it is no different from being incentivised for other clinical work through the QOF, enhanced services and other policies.

Dr James Simpkin, a GP in Hove, Sussex, does not understand why the scheme has been branded unethical.

He says: ‘This payment is to try to improve diagnosis rates, help with care planning and with the extra workload patients with dementia sometimes generate. I see no difference between incentivised case-finding exercises through CCGs, some QOF areas and other [enhanced services].’

Dr Ivan Camphor, secretary of mid-Mersey LMC and a GP on the Wirral, says the scheme offers a ‘win-win scenario for everyone’.

He says: ‘I honestly don’t see a moral issue in this. The only moral issue I see is that we’re trying to help our patients with early diagnosis and providing them with appropriate information to signpost them to the appropriate services.’

Wider debate

The GPC has not so far taken a fixed stance – although negotiators stress they do not agree with the new enhanced service and were not given any say in it through the usual contractual negotiations.

Dr Richard Vautrey, GPC deputy chair, says: ‘If practices need to [sign up], I am sure they will uphold the highest professional standards when doing that and won’t be motivated by the resource issue.

‘Nevertheless, that is clouding some consultations from a patient’s perspective. Even with the best clinical judgment, these things can cause a problem from the patient’s point of view.’

Whatever GPs decide, it seems unlikely they will earn significant income from the scheme.

According to the specifications(1), practices either have to make sure patients diagnosed in hospital or a memory clinic have their patient record updated, or they can diagnose patients themselves if ‘the GP determines that it is not necessary to refer a patient with suspected dementia’.

Some may take the opportunity to audit and update records where patients who have already been diagnosed have not been coded correctly – a process that, according to one study(2), could increase the number identified by nearly 1%.

However, most areas are facing very long waiting times for memory clinics, meaning any further diagnoses that result from referrals made from now are unlikely to filter through before March.

Uncertain future

A group of more than 50 GPs, consultants and patients, led by Guildford GP and leading campaigner on over-diagnosis Dr Martin Brunet, have written an open letter to NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens and dementia czar Professor Alistair Burns, calling for the policy to be withdrawn.

NHS England refuses to cancel the existing scheme, saying it is designed to ‘support general practice’. However, chief executive Simon Stevens recently told Pulse that it was a ‘one-time’ scheme that was unlikely to be renewed next April.

Dr Vautrey says he believes NHS England will drop the scheme after all the bad publicity.

He says: ‘I think they have realised this is a bit of a silly scheme that isn’t likely to be of benefit in the future.

‘I think this is linked directly to the need for the Prime Minister to get re-elected, to fulfil one of the pledges he has made. So come next May, NHS England will probably have other priorities, whoever is running the country, and I suspect this scheme will wither as a result of that.’

However, many GPs still have concerns about the implications of the scheme for payments linked to diagnosis in the future.

RCGP chair Dr Maureen Baker says she recognises the policy of paying per diagnosis of dementia has ‘divided opinion’ among GPs and says the college is exploring the issue further in order to arrive at a consensus. 

Professor Martin Marshall, who is due to stand down as the RCGP’s ethics committee chair this month after six years at the helm, and who was one of the architects of the QOF, tells Pulse his personal view is that the policy is clearly different from other incentives GPs receive, but that he hopes it will initiate a wider debate on the use of financial incentives.

Professor Marshall says: ‘There seems to me to be a significant difference between this policy and the way we  have used financial incentives to modify clinical behaviours in the relatively straightforward areas of QOF.

‘It is so extreme that I hope it will trigger a debate about the risks of using financial incentives and the impact of using them on professionalism.’

References

1. NHS England. Dementia Identification Scheme. Enhanced Service Specification. 2014

2. Russell P et al. Improving the identification of people with dementia in primary care. BMJ Open 2013;3:e004023

Rate this article  (5 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (3)

  • NHS Scotland had a financially incentivised approach to the "early diagnosis" of dementia. This was HEAT Target 4. The target was reached and the Scottish Government were triumphant about this presenting the achievement to Westminster in 2012 (All Party Parliamentary Group)

    NHS Board in Scotland took robust measures to reach the target and thus gain the financial reward. Practice became skewed in many ways to reach the target.

    This target was set by the Scottish Government. The most Senior Official for Mental Health in the Government (Mr Geoff Huggins) stated that the Government had been careful "to take out saboteurs" and that any disagreement by doctors or managers would be dealt with "behind the bike shed".

    Wind on nearly 4 years and it is emerging that elderly patients were mis-diagnosed with "early dementia" as a result of this target. In fact they have static age-related memory loss and not dementia.

    Scotland stands as evidence emerges of the harmful effects of an incentivised target based on "early diagnosis". It is no light matter to make a wrong diagnosis. Ask those mis-diagnosed.

    I personally campaigned across the United Kingdomfor an approach based on a TIMELY approach to diagnosis. This approach was completely rejected by the Scottish Government throughout my "engagement" with them. But CURIOUSLY the Scottish Government are now taking credit for a timely approach to diagnosis. This is quite sickening as Scotland could have offered an important lesson had the Scottish Government been open, honest and shown probity.

    I agree with all those who say that chasing a crude uncertain population target, a target that is politically motivated and has been promoted RELENTLESSLY by the Alzheimer's Society is UNETHICAL.

    This approach risks generating a huge amount of fear. It also risks medicalising too much of ageing such that those living with dementia are further disadvantaged as services get ever more stretched.

    Above all a TARGET like this, an I realise that NHS England call it an “ambition”, ignores complexity and the parabolic distribution of cognition over our life course. Our elder generation deserve far far better.

    Dr Peter J. Gordon
    Psychiatrist for Older Adults
    NHS Scotland

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am in favour of performance related pay to GPs for screening cases for dementia as two separate pay scales, one for number of patients screened, and other for number of patients diagnosed.
    It is definitely not unethical to make early diagnosis of dementia followed by relevant investigations and management.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am in favour of performance related pay to GPs for screening cases for dementia as two separate pay scales, one for number of patients screened, and other for number of patients diagnosed.
    It is definitely not unethical to make early diagnosis of dementia followed by relevant investigations and management.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say