The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme and spirometry: rewarding quality or just quantity? A cross-sectional study in Rotherham, UK.

BACKGROUND: Accurate spirometry is important in the management of COPD. The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme for general practitioners includes spirometry related indicators within its COPD domain. It is not known whether high achievement against QOF spirometry indicators is associated with spirometry to BTS standards. METHODS: Data were obtained from the records of 3,217 patients randomly sampled from 5,649 patients with COPD in 38 general practices in Rotherham, UK. Severity of airflow obstruction was categorised by FEV1 (% predicted) according to NICE guidelines. This was compared with clinician recorded COPD severity. The proportion of patients whose spirometry met BTS standards was calculated in each practice using a random sub-sample of 761 patients. The Spearman rank correlation between practice level QOF spirometry achievement and performance against BTS spirometry standards was calculated. RESULTS: Spirometry as assessed by clinical records was to BTS standards in 31% of cases (range at practice level 0% to 74%). The categorisation of airflow obstruction according to the most recent spirometry results did not agree well with the clinical categorisation of COPD recorded in the notes (Cohen's kappa = 0.34, 0.30 - 0.38). 12% of patients on COPD registers had FEV1 (% predicted) results recorded that did not support the diagnosis of COPD. There was no association between quality, as measured by adherence to BTS spirometry standards, and either QOF COPD9 achievement (Spearman's rho = -0.11), or QOF COPD10 achievement (rho = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework currently assesses the quantity, but not the quality of spirometry.

Does increased use of private health care reduce the demand for NHS care? A prospective survey of general practice referrals.

BACKGROUND: The use of the private sector for health care is increasing, but it is unclear whether this will reduce demand on the NHS. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between private and NHS outpatient referral rates accounting for their association with deprivation. METHODS: This is a prospective survey of general practitioner referrals to private and NHS consultant-led services between 1 January and 31 December 2001 from 10 general practices in the Trent Focus Collaborative Research Network, United Kingdom. Patient referrals were aggregated to give private and NHS referral rates for each electoral ward in each practice. RESULTS: Of 17,137 referrals, 90.4 percent (15,495) were to the NHS and 9.6 percent (1642) to the private sector. Private referral rates were lower in patients from the most deprived fifth of wards compared with the least deprived fifth (rate ratio 0.25, 95 percent CI 0.15 to 0.41, p < 0.001), whereas NHS referral rates were slightly higher in patients in the most deprived fifth of wards (rate ratio 1.18, 95 percent CI 0.98 to 1.42, p = 0.08) both after age standardisation and adjustment for practice. The NHS referral rate was significantly higher (rate ratio 1.40, 95 percent CI 1.15 to 1.71, p = 0.001) in wards with private referral rates in the top fifth compared with the bottom fifth after adjustment for deprivation and practice. CONCLUSIONS: Increased private health care activity does not reduce the demand for NHS care: NHS and private referral rates were positively associated with each other after adjusting for age, deprivation and practice.