The public health impact

The Quality and Outcomes Framework: QOF - Transforming General Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 78-81

  Dixon, Anna ^a   Khachatryan, Artak ^a   Boyce, Tammy ^a  

^a KING S FUND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903972851     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Gillam S, Meads G. Modernisation and the Future of General Practice. London: King's Fund; 2001.
2. Department of Health. Developing the Quality and Outcomes Framework: proposals for a new, independent process (consultation); 2008. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ yc9geld.
3. Department of Health. Tackling Health Inequalities: 2006-08 policy and data update for the 2010 national target; 2009. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ylmc2v9.
4. Health Inequalities Unit DoH. Tackling Health Inequalities: 2006-08 policy and date update for the 2010 national target; 2009. Available at: www.dh.gov.uk/publications.
5. Healthcare Commission. The Annual Health Check 2007/08. London: Healthcare Commission; 2009.
6. Department of Health, 2009,The Annual Health Check 2007/08. London: Healthcare Commission.
7. Department of Health, 2009,The Annual Health Check 2007/08. London: Healthcare Commission.
8. Department of Health. Tackling Health Inequalities: a programme for action; 2003. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/26tros.
9. The Marmot Review. Fair Society, Healthy Lives; 2010. Available at: www.ucl.ac.uk/ gheg/marmotreview/Documents/finalreport/.
10. Doran T. Delivery systems and mechanisms for reducing inequalities in both social determinants and health outcomes. Final Report of Task Group 7, Part 3: Case study on an experiment in altering the system dynamic-the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) initiative; 2010. Available at: www.ucl.ac.uk/gheg/marmotreview.
11. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programmes in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(4): 375-84.
12. Ashworth M, Seed P, Armstrong D, et al. The relationship between social deprivation and the quality of primary care: a national survey using indicators from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. Br J Gen Pract. 2007; 57(539):441-8.
13. Doran T, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis E, et al. Effect of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Lancet. 2008; 372(9640):728-36.
14. Ashworth M, Medina J, Morgan M. Effect of social deprivation on blood pressure monitoring and control in England: a survey of data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework. BMJ. 2008; 337: a2030.
15. Sahota N, Hood A, Shankar A, et al. Developing performance indicators for primary care: Walsall's experience. Br J Gen Pract. 2008; 58(557): 856-61.
16. Wang Y, O'Donnell CA, Mackay DF, et al. Practice size and quality attainment under the new GMS contract: a cross-sectional analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2006; 56(532):830-5.
17. Ashworth M, Armstrong D. The relationship between general practice characteristics and quality of care: a national survey of quality indicators used in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2004-5. BMC Fam Pract. 2006; 7: 68.
18. Doran, Fullwood, Kontopantelis, et al.,The relationship between general practice characteristics and quality of care: a national survey of quality indicators used in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2004-5. BMC Fam Pract. 2006; 7: 68.
19. Saxena S, Car J, Eldred D, et al. Practice size, caseload, deprivation and quality of care of patients with coronary heart disease, hypertension and stroke in primary care: national cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007; 7: 96.
20. Doran T, Fullwood C, Reeves D, et al. Exclusion of patients from pay-for-performance targets by English physicians. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 274-84.
21. House of Commons: Health Committee. Health Inequalities, Part 6: the role of the NHS in tackling health inequalities. Third report of session 2008-09, Vol. I. Report No.: HC 286-I. London: TSO (The Stationery Office); 2009.
22. Department of Health. Developing the Quality and Outcomes Framework: proposals for a new, independent process; consultation response and analysis; 2009. Available at: http:// tinyurl.com/ychag3r.
23. Doran, Developing the Quality and Outcomes Framework: proposals for a new, independent process; consultation response and analysis; 2009. Available at: http:// tinyurl.com/ychag3r.
24. Fleetcroft R, Cookson R. Do the incentive payments in the new NHS contract for primary care reflect likely population health gains. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006; 11(1): 27-31.
25. University of East Anglia, University of York. Quality and Outcomes Framework; 2008 [cited 5 May 2009]. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/dcu4e6.
26. Bottle A, Millett C, Xie Y, et al. Quality of primary care and hospital admissions for diabetes mellitus in England. J Ambul Care Manage. 2008; 31(3): 226-38.
27. Downing A, Rudge G, Cheng Y, et al. Do the UK government's new Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores adequately measure primary care performance? A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007; 7(1):166.
28. Strong M, South G, Carlisle R. The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-forperformance scheme and spirometry: rewarding quality or just quantity? A crosssectional study in Rotherham, UK. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009; 9: 108.
29. Williams PH, de Lusignan S. Does a higher 'quality points' score mean better care in stroke? An audit of general practice medical records. Inform Prim Care. 2006; 14(1): 29-40.
30. The Information Centre, NHS. Time Series Analysis for 2001-2006 for Selected Clinical Indicators from the Quality and Outcomes Framework. QRESEARCH; 2007.
31. Khunti K, Gadsby R, Millett C, et al. Quality of diabetes care in the UK: comparison of published quality-of-care reports with results of the Quality and Outcomes Framework for diabetes. Diabet Med. 2007; 24(12): 1436-41.
32. Crawley D, Ng A, Mainous AG, et al. Impact of pay for performance on quality of chronic disease management by social class group in England. J R Soc Med. 2009; 102(3): 103-7.
33. Gulliford MC, Ashworth M, Robotham D, et al. Achievement of metabolic targets for diabetes by English primary care practices under a new system of incentives. Diabet Med. 2007; 24(5): 505-11.
34. Alabbadi I, Crealey G, Turner K, et al. Statin prescribing in Northern Ireland and England pre and post introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Pharm World Sci. 2010; 32(1): 43-51.
35. MacBride-Stewart SP, Elton R, Walley T. Do quality incentives change prescribing patterns in primary care? An observational study in Scotland. Fam Pract. 2008; 25(1): 27-32.
36. Phillips LA, Donovan KL, Phillips AO. Renal quality outcomes framework and eGFR:impact on secondary care. QJM. 2009; 102(6): 415-23.
37. The Marmot Review, Renal quality outcomes framework and eGFR:impact on secondary care. QJM. 2009; 102(6): 415-23.
38. House of Commons: Health Committee, Renal quality outcomes framework and eGFR:impact on secondary care. QJM. 2009; 102(6): 415-23.
39. Department of Health, 2008, Renal quality outcomes framework and eGFR:impact on secondary care. QJM. 2009; 102(6): 415-23.
40. Watts B, Lawrence R, Litaker D, et al. Quality of care by a hypertension expert: a cautionary tale for pay-for-performance approaches. Qual Manag Health Care. 2008; 17(1): 35-46.