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

QOF changes not ruled by political aims

I am writing in response to your article 'NICE says political agenda will drive its QOF changes'.

The article states that new clinical indicators for the QOF will 'only' be developed if they 'relate to one of the public health or NHS clinical priority areas, or to other health-related Government priorities'.

This assertion is inaccurate, as it refers only to part (a) of question 2 in the interim process guide section, which asks whether one or more of the following is satisfied:

a) Do the proposed indicators relate to one of the public health or NHS clinical priority areas, or to other health-related Government priorities?

b) Would the proposed indicators lead to cost-effective improvements in delivery of healthcare?

c) Are the consequences of the changed indicators on other health and social care sectors well understood?

The sentence you refer to in your article is clearly an optional component of one aspect of the selection criteria for clinical indicators. When

a clinical area for a future QOF indicator is suggested to the advisory committee via the NICE website, the suggestion is marked against a number of selection criteria to assess whether there is a strong case.

A full list of selection criteria is available in the recently published interim process guide, which is available on the NICE website and will be consulted on later this summer.

From Val Moore, NICE implementation director

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