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

NICE supports call for QOF to reward offers of treatment rather than prescribing

EXCLUSIVE The chair of NICE has said RCGP proposals urging a change in the way QOF performance measures and guidelines are worded to give GPs greater freedom to advise patients are ’really positive’.

The RCGP’s overdiagnosis group has asked NICE to change the QOF so that GPs are rewarded as much for offering treatment as for prescribing medication, and moving away from the use of ’refused treatment’ in exception reporting codes.

NICE chair Professor David Haslam told Pulse that the suggestions were ‘tremendously helpful’, but added the body would not take forward the proposals without testing them first.

It follows the row over the proposed inclusion of an indicator for GPs to prescribe statins for any patient with a 10%10-year CV risk, which NICE finally dropped after resistance from the profession.

Currently, several indicators – such as the primary prevention statins indicator (PP001) – reward GPs for prescribing statins, rather than the offer of treatment.

But Dr Julian Treadwell, vice-chair of the RCGP’s Standing Group on Overdiagnosis, said that allowing GPs more freedom to decide when to depart from QOF indicators was important. 

Speaking at a session on NICE guidance for GPs and CCGs at this year’s annual NICE conference in Liverpool, Dr Treadwell said that a letter from the group, which has been rubberstamped by the college, suggested several changes.

He said: ‘We suggested, wouldn’t it be nice to create QOF points that were based on an offer of treatment rather than actually prescribing something and hitting a target – so you have a “statins offered” or ”statins offered with a decision aid”.’

He added that the group had also proposed that NICE change the way QOF exception reporting codes are worded, including getting rid of codes using the term ’treatment refused’.

He added: ‘It would be really good if NICE could make a powerful statement about exception reporting not being a bad thing – that it is actually good medicine a lot of the time. And we need to get rid of language that has ”refused” in them.

‘And wouldn’t it be nice if you had an exception code “not prescribed after risk-benefit consideration”. At the moment you have to wait for somebody to get a side-effect, or they have to decline it – and there is nothing that allows your judgment as a doctor to say that wouldn’t be the right thing.’

The group has also asked NICE to look at including caveats at the forefront of any published guidelines.

Professor Haslam told Pulse the letter was ‘tremendously helpful’ and that it had ‘a really positive response from us’.

He added: ’There are some details in it that we need to look at carefully, the suggestions in it are mainly very positive and supportive. That doesn’t just mean we can take the wording suggested in the letter and insert that in NICE’s documentation.

‘We have to be sure we don’t end up with unintended consequences… so we have got to test these things properly.’

Dr Alistair Blair, GP and chair of Northumbria CCG, who also spoke at the session, said: ‘[Health secretary] Jeremy Hunt is obviously keen on looking at quality metrics. If the quality metric is simply how many patients are on a statin, rather than how many patients are on a statin and how many have had an informed discussion and don’t want to be on this treatment, that’s a different measure.

’We’ve got to really aggressively make sure that we include both because otherwise informed dissent is seen as not actually having had the conversation and we penalise really good quality medicine as a result.’

 

 

Readers' comments (7)

  • Am I getting this right? RCGP still wants QoF but in a more palatable form.
    I thought we should be getting rid of QoF altogether to return to normalcy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We could then water it down further to "vaguely thought about it but decided it was a waste of time"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Mmmmm
    Shouldn't this be a common sense present in the very first beginning ?
    How many lessons NICE has to learn really?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Finally a sensible comment from NICE. How long before the next one? If only we hadn't had years of computer says no.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good idea but how about a better idea - trusting to GPs to do this without the burden of QoF and coding. I am fed up of treating patients and treating my computer

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • the wording sent is about guidelines and how they are framed for GPs and patients/carers/families. Personally I would tear QOF down. If it persists in whatever form/or coding of whatever kind continues/ in whatever form on treatment choices - it has to be realistic and about what patients want - not what qof/expert guideline writers/politicians say.
    I think the principle is important and I'm glad that NICE seem to agree
    coi
    chair of overdiagnosis group

    if you want to get involved do email me
    mgt mccartney

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • please ask Dr Marotta to stop sending me emails marked urgent
    I am sure he is a fine man but I am not acquainted with him and do not need to personally correspond with him
    Thank you

    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.