When was qof introduced

If you have difficulty installing or accessing a different browser, contact your IT support team. QOF indicators can change every year, and new measures and indicators are either introduced or retired. The QOF is not about performance management but resourcing and then rewarding best practice. The most current business rules, are available in PDFs and are available in zip folders. The tracked changes showing version of the business rules zip file shows the current version of the business rules with the changes applied from the previous version visible.

But evidence was reported to be limited of the direct impact of the QOF on health or health inequalities. Chapter 6 critically reflects on informatics opportunities and challenges.

On the one hand in-practice systems and electronic patient records provide researches with a huge database, but major limitations are described. Furthermore, the authors indicate that better recording results in higher QOF points, but at the same time may not necessarily be an indicator of better care.

Chapter 7 summarizes evidence from two sets of papers regarding the impact of QOF on practice organisation and service delivery. Findings of two linked qualitative case studies in England and Scotland in four very different general medical practices are reported. The authors show that even though all practices had changed their structures and organisation significantly, all four practices did not relate to the fact as a substantial change.

Interestingly though, the observed changes narrowed the gap in difference among those practices in terms of structure, organisation and in type of care offered. Part III with only two chapters focuses on practical aspects. Chapter 8 provides insight into ways for practices to maximise their QOF potential. Mixed with numerous practical examples the authors show how to achieve targets with forward planning and good organisation. So far there has been little attention paid to patient related aspects of the QOF.

Patients might find it difficult to distinguish between benefits for their own good or benefits in terms of financial rewards for the general practitioner. Part IV with chapters 10—12 completes the book with a reflection on pay-for-performance P4P in primary care and an international perspective.

Chapter 10 looks into current P4P schemes and extent of contribution to quality improvement in primary care. The chapter starts by identifying key aspects of quality. However, defining quality is complex, and consequently various definitions are provided all over the literature. In the course of the chapter the authors present relevant literature and primary research, focussing on the effect of P4P on quality. The authors show that although evidence is limited, P4P schemes do have an effect on the behaviour of physicians, but broader definitions should be taken into account.

Chapter 11 provides an international perspective on P4P. The authors challenge the evidence base, flexibility of the system in terms of individual care, and cost-effectiveness, and discuss the importance of unintended consequences. They finish the chapter with pointing a view to alternative strategies of improving patient care. Some features on this site will not work. You should use a modern browser such as Edge, Chrome, Firefox, or Safari.

If you have difficulty installing or accessing a different browser, contact your IT support team. Internet explorer is no longer supported. Geographic Coverage: England. Page contents Summary Latest statistics About this publication Past publications.