This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GP leaders' concerns over 'gaming' in Commissioning Outcomes Framework

Leading GP academics have voiced concerns that CCGs may resort to ‘gaming’ to meet targets set by the new Commissioning Outcomes Framework (COF).

The framework has been developed by the NHS Commissioning Board and NICE, and forms the basis of how the performance of CCGs will be assessed. Its performance will also determine quality premium payments made to GP practices.

During a panel discussion hosted by NICE at the RCGP’s annual conference in Glasgow last week, GP academic experts raised concerns about the ‘unintended consequences’ of tying financial incentives to commissioning targets.

Professor Martin Marshall, professor of healthcare improvement at University College London, and a GP in Lambeth in South London, said CCGs would gain indicators by ‘gaming’, and urged NICE to closely observe the ways in which CCGs will achieve the indicators when developing the COF.

‘Clever people game indicators. It will happen’, he said.

He added: ‘Asking high ranking panels in positions of public accountability is not the best way to get into these channels of activities. Asking frontline clinicians and managers how you would gain these indicators behind closed doors is the best way of getting at it.’

‘What we do know from the QOF is that quantitative gaming in the QOF is not that big, but the impact on the credibility of the system is enormous.’

Dr Colin Hunter, chairman of the NICE QOF advisory committee, and a GP in Aberdeen, said ‘gaming can easily distort the reality.’

The thoughts were echoed by Professor Martin Roland, professor of Health Services Research at the University of Cambridge, who said there would be ‘unintended consequences from the introduction of incentives’.

Nick Baillie, NICE’s associate director, said that the panel’s discussion raised ‘important questions in how the COF is used.’

The GPC has voiced concerns that the list of 44 indicators introduced by NICE are bureaucratic, and measure some outcomes that are outside the control of CCGs.

Mr Baillie admitted there was debate around this topic, but said the indicators were tested against strict criteria including whether outcomes measured were influenced by the actions of CCGs.  

The list of COF indicators, which includes measuring outcomes for mortality for cancer and respiratory disease, and patient experience of GP out-of-hours services, are set to be signed off by the NHS Commissioning Board in December.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Of course they will game indicatiors. Given the funding attached to them they would be crazy not too. What needs to be done is for the NCB to do a decent job in settting the indicators so when gamed gives the outcomes they desire.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • By gaming i assume they mean doing as little pointless work as possible whilst dealing with patients and not having to fire staff. After all we know there aren't any 'front line cuts' right?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Harry Longman

    Show me a target and I'll show you an unintended consequence.

    I'm going to keep saying this until targets disappear from the political landscape, and we realise that the intrinsic motivation of professional people is the way to sustainable improvement.

    By they way, any idea why the Sami of northern Finland graze their reindeer near to roads? Because there's more chance of a beast getting hit by a lorry, and the compensation is easier to get than taking the reindeer to market.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say