QOF Achievement Data 06/07
Notes on 2006/07 Quality and Outcomes Framework Data
The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) became part of the general practice contracts on 1st April 2004. Participation by practices in voluntary. All practices in Wales participated and had to follow the UK QOF framework.
The QOF for 2006/07 was revised as part of the GMS contract negotiations, 166 points were removed, 138 points were allocated to new work and 28 points redistributed to existing indicators. The 50 Access bonus points were also removed from the QOF and incorporated into the Access DES, making the QOF maximum 1000 points. In light of the 2004/05 achievement data all lower thresholds were raised to 40%, for the majority of indicators the upper threshold remained at 90%. For those indicators with an upper achievement threshold of less than 90%, this was raised in line with the 2004/5 average achievement.
All 497 practices in Wales participated in all the domains contained within the QOF during 2006/7
A summary of the QOF domains can be found at:
A description of the individual QOF indicators within each domain can be found at:
This QOF data for 2006/7 (1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007) represents the third year for which QOF information is available.
The data reported by the Welsh Assembly Government is derived from the national 'CM Web' software as at 1st April 2007. During the period 1st April 2007 to 31st July 2007, 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 2007 data baselined as at 31st July 2007.
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:
Numerator and denominator data is provided for the clinical indicators governed by the ‘QOF Dataset and Business Rules’.
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 2006/07 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
Last updated: 13/10/2010