Stephen Campbell1, Kerin Hannon, Helen Lester. 1. National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exception reporting allows practices to exclude eligible patients from indicators or an entire clinical domain of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). It is a source of contention, viewed by some as a 'gaming' mechanism. AIM: To explore GP and practice staff views and experiences of exception reporting in the QOF. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Interviews with 24 GPs, 20 practice managers, 13 practice nurses, and nine other staff were conducted in 27 general practices in the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews, analysed using open explorative thematic coding. RESULTS: Exception reporting was seen as a clinically necessary part of the QOF. Exempting patients, particularly for discretionary reasons, was seen as an 'exception to the rule' that was justified either in terms of practising patient-centred care within a framework of population-based health measures or because of the poor face validity of the indicators. Rates in all practices were described as minimal and the threat of external scrutiny from primary care trusts kept rates low. However, GPs were happy to defend using discretionary exception codes for individual patients. Exception reporting was used, particularly at the end of the payment year, to meet unmet targets and to prevent the practice being penalised financially. Overt gaming was seen as something done by 'other' practices. Only two GPs admitted to occasional inappropriate exception reporting. CONCLUSION: Exception reporting is seen by most GPs and practice staff as an important and defensible safeguard against inappropriate treatment or over-treatment of patients. However, a minority of practitioners also saw it as a gaming mechanism.
BACKGROUND: Exception reporting allows practices to exclude eligible patients from indicators or an entire clinical domain of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). It is a source of contention, viewed by some as a 'gaming' mechanism. AIM: To explore GP and practice staff views and experiences of exception reporting in the QOF. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Interviews with 24 GPs, 20 practice managers, 13 practice nurses, and nine other staff were conducted in 27 general practices in the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews, analysed using open explorative thematic coding. RESULTS: Exception reporting was seen as a clinically necessary part of the QOF. Exempting patients, particularly for discretionary reasons, was seen as an 'exception to the rule' that was justified either in terms of practising patient-centred care within a framework of population-based health measures or because of the poor face validity of the indicators. Rates in all practices were described as minimal and the threat of external scrutiny from primary care trusts kept rates low. However, GPs were happy to defend using discretionary exception codes for individual patients. Exception reporting was used, particularly at the end of the payment year, to meet unmet targets and to prevent the practice being penalised financially. Overt gaming was seen as something done by 'other' practices. Only two GPs admitted to occasional inappropriate exception reporting. CONCLUSION: Exception reporting is seen by most GPs and practice staff as an important and defensible safeguard against inappropriate treatment or over-treatment of patients. However, a minority of practitioners also saw it as a gaming mechanism.
Authors: Tim Doran; Catherine Fullwood; Hugh Gravelle; David Reeves; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Urara Hiroeh; Martin Roland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julie Langan Martin; Richard Lowrie; Alex McConnachie; Gary McLean; Frances Mair; Stewart W Mercer; Daniel J Smith Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Felix Greaves; Anthony A Laverty; Utz Pape; Anenta Ratneswaren; Azeem Majeed; Christopher Millett Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Karolina Kuberska; Fiona Scheibl; Carol Sinnott; James P Sheppard; Mark Lown; Marney Williams; Rupert A Payne; Jonathan Mant; Richard J McManus; Jenni Burt Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Richard Lowrie; Alex McConnachie; Andrea E Williamson; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Marie Forrest; Norman Lannigan; Stewart W Mercer; Frances S Mair Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Evangelos Kontopantelis; David A Springate; Darren M Ashcroft; Jose M Valderas; Sabine N van der Veer; David Reeves; Bruce Guthrie; Tim Doran Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 7.035