| Exception reporting in the Quality and Outcomes Framework: views of practice staff - a qualitative study. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 21439176 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
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:
|
Stephen Campbell; Kerin Hannon; Helen Lester |
Related Documents
:
|
3988636 - Scheduled breeding of gilts after estrous synchronization with altrenogest. 21169826 - The acute management of intracerebral hemorrhage. 15292026 - Acog committee opinion. number 297, august 2004. nonmedical use of obstetric ultrasonog... 7759926 - Klumpke's birth palsy. does it really exist? 15993376 - Negotiating participation: understanding the "how" in an ergonomic change team. 6619456 - Perceptions of importance of management aspects of dietetic practice. |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners Volume: 61 ISSN: 1478-5242 ISO Abbreviation: Br J Gen Pract Publication Date: 2011 Apr |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2011-03-28 Completed Date: 2011-05-27 Revised Date: 2012-04-02 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 9005323 Medline TA: Br J Gen Pract Country: England |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 183-9 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Attitude of Health Personnel* Epidemiologic Methods General Practice* Great Britain Humans Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) Patient Compliance Patient-Centered Care Physician Incentive Plans Professional Autonomy Professional Practice* Qualitative Research Quality Indicators, Health Care* Reimbursement, Incentive Treatment Refusal |
| Grant Support | |
ID/Acronym/Agency:
|
//Department of Health |
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study.
Next Document: Ethnic differences in blood pressure monitoring and control in south east London.