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

Beware of the GP contract you wished for

  • Print
  • Comments (3)
  • Rate
  • Save

So here we are in the post-coital glow of a new contract that, for once, hasn’t screwed us, if that’s not a contradiction in terms. And yet, there’s that uncomfortable feeling, isn’t there? A feeling that says, somewhere amid a contract that feels so benign, there must be something neoplastic.

Especially in the vexed area of the Avoiding Unplanned Admissions (AUA) DES. This proved to be a bureaucratic, bean-counting, ball-aching nightmare which demonstrated only what we knew already, specifically that a) We can’t avoid unplanned admissions and b) Writing care plans involves  a lot of planning but very little caring. Having this replaced with what amounts to an Avoiding Unwanted DESs DES sounds too good to be true.

So maybe it is. A quick look through the explanatory blurb sets some alarm bells ringing. Instead of the AUA DES, we’ll be obliged contractually to ‘…focus on the management of patients with severe frailty’. On the one hand, we’re told we can apply our own clinical judgement while, on the other, we’ll have to use an ‘appropriate tool’ to identify these patients. We’re told, too, that it’s bureaucracy-free, yet we will have to code various onion-layers of category and intervention annually, such as level of frailty and fall-overability. And we’re told that data will be extracted automatically, not for performance management but, ‘To understand the nature of the interventions made’, a statement which is vague and meaningless and therefore worrying – particularly given that it’s hard to imagine what these data could be used for other than applying thumbscrews.

This last issue is the one that perhaps should have us evacuating the building. Data collection creep via CQRS is happening while we doze – and has been reinforced by the new contractual requirement to enable data collection of retired QOF and DES indicators rather than hum and hah over the invites as currently. Bland reassurances don’t wash, and with good reason: failure to evidence adequate numbers of returned Friends and Family Tests (FFT) via CQRS has prompted threats of mandatory training on FFT, FFS. Hilarious, but less so if this default monitoring is used to pick holes in weightier parts of contract or performance.

And data can be misappropriated, of course. Just ask any practice branded by local media as ‘One of the worst in Essex’ thanks to CQC ‘Intelligent Monitoring’ aka wanton abuse of QOF data. Like ours.

So thanks GPC. We got what we wished for. And therefore we should be careful. We are, after all, frail, and liable to fall over.

Dr Tony Copperfield is a GP in Essex. You can follow him on Twitter @DocCopperfield

 

Rate this blog  (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)

  • Starting in the US in the 1980's there was a belief that by recording more data, management would be able to reward good practise and predict trends. The outcome was not favourable so rather than ditch this people were made to record even more detail. Still did not work. So how about asking users what they thought. Still did not work. So how about dropping some data collection and replacing it with new data collection i.e the new contract? Probably will still not work. Recording this rubbish takes away time from caring, which is what our patients want.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Once a measure becomes a target, it cease to be a good measure.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You will not get out of recording and giving data as it keeps all the pen pushers and guidance producers in their jobs. Please have the patient and sort it to help the NHS rather than asking others to do what they are already doing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.

  • Print
  • Comments (3)
  • Rate
  • Save

From: Copperfield

Dr Tony Copperfield is a jobbing GP in Essex with more than a few chips on his shoulder