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

I can tell you exactly what QIPP means

As a newbie GP – qualified in November 2010 – I'd like to offer my thoughts on the quality and productivity aspects of QOF and how they fit in with QIPP.

• Quality I'm sure there will be an ‘evidence base' ready to be wheeled out to back these schemes, but are these trials pragmatic? In north Staffordshire, do patients really want bits of paper with what are effectively protocols on them? Are they actually going to read them, let alone follow them?

• Innovation This rather implies that there is scope for creativity and a willingness by all stakeholders to try something else. Do either exist?

• Productivity If we are going to push on with these – and let's face it, there isn't a choice – then surely the Primary Care Diabetes Society and Primary Care Respiratory Society should produce a template? Having individual practices expending time re-inventing something that may already be available is neither efficient nor productive.

• Prevention This remains to be seen. If, as I believe, the majority of plans will grace the inside of a domestic bin, there will be no impact on admissions. Do we really need to wait for further analyses to reveal what is blindingly obvious?

So therefore, QIPP: Quite Inefficient and Potentially Pointless.

From Dr Hrishikesh Pathak
Stoke-on-Trent

Rate this article 

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

Have your say