Search 

• Advanced search

Home > Quality and Outcomes Framework > Achievement Data > QOF Achievement Data 05/06

QOF Achievement Data 05/06

Notes on 2005/06 Quality and Outcomes Framework Data 

Background

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) became part of general practice contracts on 1st April 2004. Participation by practices is voluntary. All practices in Wales participated and had to follow the UK QOF framework.

All 500 practices in Wales participated in all the domains contained within the QOF during 2005/6

A summary of the QOF domains can be found at:

QOF Points Total Summary

A description of the individual QOF indicators within each domain can be found at:

QOF Indicators Description

This QOF data for 2005/06 (1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006) represents the second year for which QOF information is available.

The data reported by the Welsh Assembly Government is derived from the national ‘Contract Manager’ software as at 1st April 2006. During the period 1st April 2006 to 31st July 2006, modifications/adjustments to this data following Local Health Boards (LHB) dialogue/negotiations with individual practices have taken place, culminating in the presentation of this 1st April 2006 data baselined as at 31st July 2006.

The rules governing the reporting of data within the clinical domain are encapsulated within the technical documents entitled the ‘QOF Dataset and Business Rules’ which can be found at:

http://www.primarycarecontracting.nhs.uk/145.php

Numerator and denominator data is provided for the clinical indicators governed by the ‘QOF Dataset and Business Rules’. The small number of practices that were unable to utilise the ‘Contract Manager’ software, due to technical issues, were requested to provide percentage ‘achievement’ figures only. Hence numerator and denominator information is not available for these practices and is denoted by ‘NA’.

Comparative analysis

This published data will provide a potentially rich source of information on the provision of primary care services. However, it must be recognised that levels of QOF 'achievement' will be related to a variety of local circumstances, and should be interpreted in the context of those circumstances.

Users of this data should be particularly careful to undertake comparative analysis on this basis. In particular:

(1)   The ranking of practices on the basis of QOF points achieved, either overall or with respect to areas within the QOF, may be inappropriate. QOF points do not reflect practice workload issues (for example, around list sizes and disease prevalence). Practice QOF payments include adjustments for such factors.

(2)   The comparative analysis of practice or LHB level QOF achievement may also be inappropriate without taking account of the underlying social and demographic characteristics of the populations concerned. The delivery of services will be related, for example, to population age/sex, ethnicity or deprivation characteristics that are not included in the QOF data collection processes.

(3)   Information on QOF achievement, as represented by QOF points, should also be interpreted with respect to local circumstances around general practice infrastructure. In undertaking comparative or explanatory analysis, users of the data should be aware of any effect of the numbers of partners (including single handers), local recruitment and staffing issues, issues around practice premises, and local IT issues.

(4)   Similarly users of the data should be aware that different types of practice may serve different communities. Comparative analysis should therefore take account of local circumstances, such as numbers on practice lists of student populations, drug users, homeless populations, asylum seekers etc.

(5)   The 2005/06 information does not allow analysis of the extent to which service delivery improved during 2005/06, and that it is possible that relatively low-scoring practices could actually have seen significant improvements. Any such analysis can only be undertaken in the light of local circumstances.

(6)   Underlying all this is the fact that the QOF data reported upon is highly dependent on diagnosis and recording within general practices on their clinical information systems