This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GPs told to continue working on retired QOF indicators to 'demonstrate good patient care'

Exclusive GPs have been told by NHS managers that they are ‘required to’ continue providing services that were dropped from QOF as part of this year’s contract negotiations to demonstrate ‘ongoing delivery of good patient care’, a claim that has been rubbished by the GPC.

An email from the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), distributed via NHS England local area teams to practices, said that practices had to agree to data relating to 24 retired indicators being extracted by 23 January to prove that they ‘continue to provide the services linked to these indicators’.

The indicators, which were scrapped for the 2014/15 GP contract, include a direction to use the criticised GPPAQ questionnaire to ascertain exercise levels in patients with hypertension, as well hypertension blood pressure targets that had been criticised for risking overtreatment of patients.

As part of the contract, NHS England said it would ‘continue to collect and publish data, as far as possible, on the relevant interventions and outcomes in order to support practices in promoting ongoing quality improvement’.

However, the GPC has strongly disputed that this would involve continuing to provide these services to the same extent, and has issued a warning note to all practices informing them that the email from HSCIS and and local area teams is inaccurate.

There is no indication about how NHS England will enforce this, but the GPC said there was an ‘anxiety’ that the data would be used to measure practice performance similar to the CQC’s ‘intelligent monitoring’ data and that it could be used by CCGs looking to implement their own local versions of QOF.

The note from HSCIC, sent to all GPs, said that the funding had been removed from QOF and put into the global sum, but the services still needed to be provided.

The document said: ‘The indicators included in this customer requirement were previously included and funded through QOF 2013/14. These indicators have been retired from QOF and payment has transferred to the core GMS contract for payment through the global sum.

‘It is a requirement for general practices to ensure they continue to provide the services linked to these indicators. This data extraction will help inform commissioners that general practices are continuing to do this, demonstrate their ongoing delivery of good patient care, and provide statistical information.’

However the GPC said that they had only agreed for the continued extraction of the data linked to the indicators, not for the practices to do the work.

In a warning note to practices, the GPC wrote: ‘GPC has heard a number of understandable concerns regarding recent communications from [HSCIC] about retired QOF indicators for 2014/15… HSCIC suggests that “it is a requirement for general practices to ensure they continue to provide the services linked to these indicators”. This statement is incorrect and is not what was agreed by GPC, NHS Employers and NHS England in the 2014/15 contract negotiations.’

It added that the GPC ‘anticipates a large fall in the recording of many of the retired codes’ as practices ‘now work more appropriately’.

GPC said it was especially concerned about the wording of the document in light of the CQC’s recent use of QOF performance and patient survey results to publicly band GP practices into ‘risk rating’ categories.

It wrote: ‘Following the wholly inappropriate and flawed use of coded data by the CQC as part of its “intelligent monitoring” risk assessment, practices are understandably anxious about how data that is extracted will be used.’

Dr Robert Morley, head of the GPC’s contracts and regulations subcommittee, said: ‘The document is from HSCIC and GPES but forwarded via area teams by NHS England. It directly contradicts the contract changes agreement and GPC is taking the matter up urgently with NHS England.

‘My hunch is that this probably represents cock-up rather than conspiracy but nevertheless suggests a deeply worrying lack if understanding by those who should know better of GP contractual obligations, clinical autonomy, the difference between essential services and QOF and the nature of the agreement that was reached.’

He added that there were implications around ‘how practice performance might be judged in future, for example by CQC. and the ‘increasing likelihood of local deals replacing QOF’.

He added: ‘We’ve already seen one disastrous example of this, of course, with the CQC “intelligent” monitoring debacle for those practices that had opted into a local QOF all being given a “high risk” ranking.’

HSCIC was approached for an explanation but said this was a matter for NHS England.

Pulse is still waiting for a clarification from NHS England.

The GPC negotiated wide-ranging changes to the QOF ahead of the 2014/15 contract, including the retirement of 24 indicators worth a total of 185 points from the clinical domain and 14 indicators worth 33 points from the public health domain.


Readers' comments (28)

  • It is time for us GPs to behave like true Independent Contractors. We do not have to stay in the NHS at any cost. There are a number of other systems.
    It is time for us, through the GPC, to say exactly what we will do and at what price.
    You know what if that does not suit the DOH, we should just tell them to get lost.
    After all, if you analyse this properly, we will always make a reasonable living seeing 35+ patients a day, as long as we are prepared to charge whoever pays, a proper costing.
    I cannot understand why we GPs are so slavish in a system that is so under doctored.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It has to be the fault of the GPC, who would rather see their profession decimated than make a stand on proper remuneration.
    GPC, do you not think we can survive outside the NHS? Of course we can and handsomely. All we have to do is charge a reasonable fee for everything. Please, please GPC ballot for mass resignation. Or would you rather watch as it disintegrates piece meal, with all who can, leaving and hardly anyone joining?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It appears the GPC, BMA, RCGP ARE the DoH.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We should stand up for ourselves and refuse to tolerate the way we are treated.
    My son's friend ( a teacher) was in a meeting in which the colour pen he used for marking was being criticised by a woman whose class did less well than his.
    He stood up, threw his hands in the air and said " I think I have just resigned"
    He walked out and threw his security tag over his head as he left.
    A letter posted to him was unopened and sent back marked " return to sender"
    He has had no further contact with the school.

    I admire him and am sure he will have a happier life.

    We are wimps..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • High time for GPs to unite and take an united action against all this rubbish, BMA must take there lead

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Una Coates: Any ideas on commencing private practice and assistance or examples available. Have great premises with parking but don't want to my grave before my time,,,so any thoughts, please share.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Swinyard

    I find the criticisms of the GPC a little unfair (no, I am not a current member of the GPC although I am on LMC). Our leaders are negotiating with the government with a hand tied behind their backs - as doctors will not, for perfectly good reasons, take industrial action. Look at the pensions debacle - this gave succour to the government that they could trample over us as they will.
    Now age 59, I have just downloaded form AW8 from the NHSPA site - google it! - and am reducing commitment to practice asap.
    My worry is - who will look after me as I get older and more frail?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Definition of 'retired' - no longer working.

    Wish I was!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say