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

How do I make sure I get paid for the unplanned admissions DES?

Dr Gavin Jamie advises

The unplanned admissions DES is fiendishly complicated, with many practices missing out on the money because of unclear guidance. But how can you tell what you’re owed, and get it back if you’ve missed out?

What are the payment criteria?

Although the actual requirements of the DES have been simplified the coding is more complicated than ever. There are three different codes needed for a patient to be included and attract payment.

1. Admission avoidance started 8CV4

2. Named GP allocated (this must be entered after 1/4/14) 9NN60 - this is different to last year’s code.

3. Admission avoidance care plan agreed, reviewed, declined or review declined within 12 months. This code must be entered at the same time or after the latest admission avoidance started code.

None of these codes transfer across from other GPs with other codes - they must be entered anew at each surgery.

There is a payment for signing up and fulfilling the many other criteria of the DES. Twice a year there is a payment of 77.5p per patient for having 2% of patients over 18 years old and having a care plan.

What went wrong?

This year’s changes to the required codes have caught some surgeries unaware. There were two extractions for practices using the EMIS computer system. This was because the registration date was initially taken to be the most recent change of registration status but was later considered more appropriate to be the first date that they presented to the practice.

The searches on EMIS systems which many practices used to monitor their achievement of the DES did not make sure that the codes were in the right order – the care plan code must not occur before the admission avoidance is recorded as starting . For some practices the first time that they realised there was a problem was when the patient numbers appeared on the CQRS payment system. By this time it may have been too late to correct the problem.

We don’t have 2% of patients on the register. Can we still get paid?

There is some leeway in the figures. Practices should have two percent of patients over 18 years old on the list. However this can be as low as 1.8% in this period and still gain the payment. The average would still need to be 2% over the year so practices may need to go up to 2.2% at the end of March 2016.

Patients on the register have a relatively high mortality rate, not surprisingly as these will be some of the sickest patients on the surgery list. Patients who were on the register but have died in the previous six months will not be picked up by the automatic extraction. If you can identify these patients on your computer they can be entered manually into CQRS and may be able tip you over the 1.8% threshold.

How can we get our data corrected?

There is no doubt that CQRS can be confusing and it is not clear when signing off figures whether they have met the payment criteria or not. Ultimately it will be down to your contract manager at your commissioner (NHS England or your CCG depending on local arrangements) to cancel and then update your submission.

This will be vital for practices who have missed out on the criteria for payment but can equally be important for practices who have gained payment but still have inaccurate figures. As the average over the year has to be 2% then if your total is between 1.8 and 2% then it will have to be made up at the end of the year. Anything between 2 and 2.2% could be useful if problems arise in March.

For practices who may have been affected by IT flaw resulting in data not being extracted: if there is no plan to extract the data from practices again (and I have not seen any such plan) then it will be up to practices to try to convince their local contract manager directly to get the problem solved.

Dr Gavin Jamie is a GP in Swindon and runs the QOF Database website

Rate this article  (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)

  • Don't participate and you won't lose out !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agree, tell 'em to shove it and you'll be paid for 100% of the (pointless) work you (don't) do.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is the service specification for this enhanced service which is flawed. It contradicts itself.

    Page 10 of the service specification, in xiv., specifies that:

    Patients who remain on the case management register from the previous year, will need to have at least one care review, including a review of their personalised care plan, during 2015/16.

    Therefore Patients must have at least one care plan, or care plan review, during 2015/16, which makes sense, the enhanced service is for one year.

    Page 17 of the same document details the requirements for payment for Component 2 which is for data collected at 30/9/2015:

    For developing personalised care plans with any new patients on the case management register or, for all patients already on the register undertaking at least one care review in the last 12 months.

    Practices have the whole of 2015/2016 to do a care review with patients on the register, but the algorithm for component 2 is not allowing for this, they have to have done care plans or care reviews within the last 6 months.

    System suppliers are just following the payment criteria.

    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.