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 successes for deprived practices

Practices in deprived areas do significantly better in the clinical domains of the QOF than their more affluent counterparts.

The surprising study results, published online by the BMJ, question the case for targeting resources at less affluent practices to aid their quality achievement.

The researchers said financial incentives might be a greater motivator for practices with fewer alternative sources of income.

But they cautioned that the results did not take into account exception reporting and said the true lesson of the study was that high QOF scores did not necessarily mean good clinical care.

Study researcher Dr Gary McLean, research fellow at the department of general practice and primary care, University of Glasgow, said: 'This is just based on points.

'Deprived practices would do worse if you take exceptions into account.'

Dr McLean added: 'You have to look deeper down into individual indicators; you need to know about exceptions.'

He said: 'That's the thing that comes out ­ you can't take the reported points score as quality.'

The study of 60 practices in Ayrshire and Arran in Scotland found incentivised quality was also higher for larger clinical teams and younger GPs.

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