This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

Even the CQC is obsessed with rates of diagnosis

  • Print
  • 9
  • Save

The Care Quality Commission declared today to be the day that every GP practice will learn what they really mean by Intelligent Monitoring. Every GP practice will feature in a published database that scrutinises performance against 38 different indicators, ranging from patients’ perceptions about access to their preferred GP, to how frequently our patients turn up in Accident and Emergency.

There’s so much to say about this document that I’m tempted to start a 38-blog series, going through each indicator and its potential unintended consequences in turn, but I’d probably lose the will to live before I got to double figures.

What concerns me most, though, is the inclusion of diagnosis rates in this allegedly intelligent information. Practices are to be judged on their diagnosis rates for dementia (inevitably), Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Diagnose fewer than the CQC think you should have and your practice may be declared as at ‘risk’, fewer still and the phrase will be ‘elevated risk’. Too many risk scores and the practice will be prioritised for an early inspection, with an almost certain guarantee that the inspectors will have their knives sharpened on arrival.

Until now practices have been criticised if diagnosis rates were low, but that was it. This will now change. The threat of an early and uncomfortable CQC inspection will have real teeth, meaning practices will have to do what they can to raise diagnosis rates, regardless of the consequences for patients or any analysis of the ethics of such a situation.

If the row over cash for diagnoses in dementia has taught us anything, it has demonstrated the strength of feeling, both among doctors and the general public, that there has to be an ethical foundation to the making of a diagnosis. The link between a cash payment and a diagnostic label creates an obvious conflict of interests for the doctor, but the ethical issue is that the doctor should not have any self-interest when making a diagnosis – and fear of a CQC inspection creates an arguably more powerful self-interest than a few extra pounds in the pot.

At the RCGP conference in October I made something of a nuisance of myself at the CQC stand, asking whether or not they were going to judge practices on diagnosis rates. It was none other than the CQC myth-buster Nigel Sparrow who reassured me that this would never happen, but in whose universe is the statement ‘elevated risk’ not a judgment call?

How are practices to respond to this?

Let’s take CHD as an example. What are you to do if your diagnosis rates are deemed too low?: diagnose it better when patients come with symptoms? Are we really saying that any doctor lacks motivation to diagnose angina in a patient with chest pain? Isn’t it the first thing we think about?

If there’s no room to increase diagnoses in patients with symptoms, then that only leaves screening. Continuing with the example, the UK National Screening Committee does not recommended it for CHD - but who listens to them these days? What is the advantage of a diagnosis of CHD without symptoms? Intervention with stents and surgery is tempting, but has no prognostic value and probably does more harm than good.

But if screening happens, how will it be undertaken?

The CQC has no interest in this – so the way to avert the eyes of the CQC is to simply diagnose more, any which way. Screen who you like, how you like – all you need is more read codes on the system and you’ll be deemed to be giving better care. Diagnose it any which way: the intelligent monitoring isn’t clever enough to know how well you diagnose or whether you get it right or not, all it can do is count the numbers.

Of course, it might just be that you care about your patients, that you think it’s important to only diagnose when it really is going to benefit them, that you won’t start screening your patients until there’s an official, approved programme to do so – but how naïve would that be?

Enjoy your inspection.

Dr Martin Brunet is a GP in Guildford and programme director of the Guildford GPVTS. You can tweet him @DocMartin68. 

Readers' comments (9)

  • Vinci Ho

    So the question is:
    What is the real meaning of safety in general practice ? Why are certain parameters chosen but not others being used to 'measure' safety?
    To QUANTIFY how safe a practice is the politically correct way to inspect?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think this is terrible news.

    Where have ethics gone in healthcare?

    I envisage potential patient harm and GPs feeling most uneasy about 38 further areas of conflicting interest.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • and the Daily Mail headline is...............One in six GP surgeries is failing: 1,200 practices could be putting patients at risk, says watchdog

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • we have been labelled as at moderate risk because patients can't always booked with their preferred GP

    but we are "above average" for being able to see/speak to a doctor or nurse ie we have duty dr who'll speak to and see if necessary anyone that feels they need same day attention

    do they not realise that access and personal availability are inversely related ?

    and why pick these 38 "indicators" out of 100?

    and I object strongly to the unevidence-based use of the word "risk" - why not use a more neutral phrase such as "needs further elucidation"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What this completely ignores is that GP practices that teach their patients how to look after themselves better, i.e. ditch drugs, eat more vegetables & fruit, avoid excessive drinking of either alcoholic or corn syrup soaked beverages, will come off worse in the ratings.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • interesting that no-one is interested in over diagnosis - or adjusting for patient demographics (apart from the prescribing indicators).
    I suspect that University practices will all be Band 1 due to their appallingly low levels of dementia...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Working at a student practice means we are to be hailed over the coals, 11 months after a very positive cqc visit. Our low rates of coad and ihd clearly makes us a suspect practice.

    I do not even understand the question on acess where we are judged to be a risk - the numerator is 0, denominator is 154 giving a result of 0.00 with an expected of 0.03. Surely this means either non-one at al was able to book an appointment, or no-one answered the question.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CQC= fechinijits

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Get a cough get a diagnosis rti

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • 9
  • Save