What is wrong with the NHS? Part two.
20th October 2023 (With lessons from, and for, all other health services around the world) The Quality and Outcomes Framework The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) was to be the glittering triumph of Evidence Based Medicine. Many of the commonest and most deadly diseases afflicting humanity would be picked up early, then treated. Almost entirely […]
20th October 2023
(With lessons from, and for, all other health services around the world)
The Quality and Outcomes Framework
The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) was to be the glittering triumph of Evidence Based Medicine. Many of the commonest and most deadly diseases afflicting humanity would be picked up early, then treated. Almost entirely by using medications which had proven benefits.
People at risk of cardiovascular disease would have their cholesterol levels checked. Then, if high, put on statins. They would have their blood pressure measured and put on antihypertensives. Other drugs to be added as required.
Anyone with diabetes would be prescribed blood sugar lowering medications. The entire list of QOF indicators is long, the funding large. The workload vast. General Practitioners gain QOF points for achieving certain targets, or ‘thresholds. For example, the percentage of their patients with high blood pressure where it is successfully lowered to achieve the required level e.g., < 140/90mmHg – or less1.
In my view this is not medicine, it is accounting. It is also stultifyingly boring. Yet, at the same time, stressful, as you desperately attempt to record ever possible point, during a consultation. And patients wonder why their GP never looks up from the computer screen. They are probably playing QOF bingo.
Each point is worth a couple of hundred pounds, and several hundred points are on offer. The average UK practice, which has just over nine thousand patients, can earn around £135K (~$200K). Money which goes directly to the GP partners. It makes up a significant portion of their income.
The aim of all this? The aim is to reduce death and damage from nasty things such as heart attacks and strokes. With diabetes, the aim is also to reduce heart attacks and strokes… additionally kidney failure, and amputations, and blindness. All exceedingly worthwhile. There are many other QOF areas.
You could argue that GPs should have been bloody doing this anyway. It’s their job, after all?
Well. Possibly. Pushing that issue to one side (Conflict of Interest statement, I am a GP) I am more interested as to whether it has worked… whether it could ever have worked. Or why it is yet another reason why the NHS is falling over sideways, burdened with an ever-increasing workload, which is of almost no use whatsoever.
The supporters of QOF, and there are many, would argue that all this activity must do good. We have all the evidence we need from rigorously controlled clinical trials, no less. We know that lowering blood pressure is highly beneficial, as is lowering cholesterol and blood sugar levels. We simply know these things.
We do, we do, we do we do.
Or maybe – we don’t.
QOF was introduced in 2004. In 2017, a study in the BMJ reported the following:
‘England’s incentives that pay GPs for performance have not delivered better care for people with long term conditions, a systematic review of evidence has found.
The study said that there was “no convincing evidence” that the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) influenced integration or coordination of care, self care or patients’ experiences, or improved any other outcomes for these patients. Rather, QOF may have “negative effects,” the reviewers said, and abolishing it may allow practices “to prioritise other activities which could lead to better care.” 2
A system that has added up to payments to GPs, since its introduction, of something in the region of £20Bn ($25Bn). The end result? It may have had ‘negative effects’. Which is a polite way of saying … not only does it do no good, but it is more likely to be causing harm.
In truth, it has cost a great deal more than £20Bn. One thing the NHS never, ever, considers is the time and money it takes to do such additional work? It is something economists call opportunity cost. What else could you be doing, if you were not doing this (useless) thing?
How much time has it swallowed up? I have no idea. I have not seen anyone attempt to quantify this. Or, if they have, I have failed to find it.
From my own experience I would estimate that, at a bare minimum, QOF takes up an hour each day. An hour of GP time is worth approximately £100. This figure is not GP pay. Despite what you read; we do not get paid that much. It includes building costs, other staff costs e.g., receptionists, heating, lighting – and all the other stuff you need to run a small business.
Now for a quick, back of a fag packet calculation. There are around thirty thousand GPs. Which means that, over and above the money directly paid out for meeting QOF ‘thresholds’, there are an additional three million pounds that need to be covered each and every day to do QOF work. Which is close to a billion a year. Another twenty billion or so, since introduction in 2004.
For which princely sum the NHS has gained, absolutely nothing at all. Apart from burnt out GPs, enormous waiting lists to see GPs. Annoyed and upset patients who end up going straight to overflowing A&E departments because they can’t be bothered to wait and see their own GP.
Here, right here, we see another reason why the NHS is going so badly wrong. And the underlying problem that drove the thinking behind QOF is mirrored in other health services around the world.
Other countries may not have the formalised system of QOF, but they too have guideline after guideline for managing long-term diseases. And meeting guidelines takes up vast amounts of time and effort. As mentioned in the previous article, it has been calculated that if Primary Care Physicians (GPs) in the US, were to follow all the treatments guidelines, it would take twenty-seven hours a day, all day, every day.
A stitch in time
QOF, and all other guidelines are based on the same principle which I shall call ‘the stitch in time strategy.’ Pick up diseases early, treat them early, and this will prevent downstream illnesses and death. Huzzah. This idea seems to mesmerise both doctors and politicians.
In truth, if you choose not to think about it too carefully it does sound good…must work surely. And, if it did, I would call it… a good thing. Bring it on. But no-one made any effort to find out if QOF was going to work, before rolling it out nationwide. There was no pilot study. There was no study of any sort. It was simply assumed that we had all the facts we needed We had all the evidence required. Such hubris.
There were those, and I was one of them, who were concerned that we were about to embark on the most gigantic healthcare experiment ever. One that could, potentially, do far more harm than good. I had many concerns, but I will just stick to one here.
Whilst we had evidence (from drug company sponsored clinical trials) demonstrating that certain actions e.g., taking an ACE-inhibitor after a heart attack, reduced the risk of future heart attacks. We did not know whether or not giving four different drugs – together – would result in greater benefit. Or, if the interactions between all four drugs might cancel out any benefit. Indeed, possibly cause harm.
Currently, after any heart attack, standard therapy includes four different medications. Often five, and if you have a raised blood sugar level, which many people are found to have, you get a couple of additional of drugs to lower blood sugar at the same time.
Has there been any trial looking at the cumulative benefit, or harm, of taking so many different drugs together? Compared to taking only one, or none? Nope. Never. The term for giving a large number of drugs simultaneously is polypharmacy.
Here is a recent study published in Nature:
‘Polypharmacy, hospitalization, and mortality risk: a nationwide cohort study’
‘Polypharmacy is a growing and major public health issue, particularly in the geriatric population. This study aimed to examine the association between polypharmacy and the risk of hospitalization and mortality,,,
Polypharmacy was associated with greater risk of hospitalization and death… Hence, polypharmacy was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization and all-cause death among elderly individuals.’ 3
My main current job involves working in a unit looking after elderly people who, for one reason or another have ended up in hospital. Usually as a result of a fall, and a resulting injury of some sort. Our job is to fix them up and get them back home again.
In this unit we use drug charts called a wardex. These have sixteen spaces available for regular medications. Last time I looked, fifty per cent of patients needed two drug charts, because they were taking more than sixteen different medications. Ergo there was no room for them all on a single wardex This explosion in the number of medications prescribed is mainly a result of GPs trying to meet QOF thresholds.
It is now widely accepted, by anyone who has looked at this issue, that polypharmacy increases mortality. However, if I dare to take patient off a single drug then, when that patient goes home, there are often howls of protest. I have had several letters of complaint.
It seems that we are stuck with a system that costs billions, takes up a huge amount of GP time, and effort, and has achieved nothing other than ‘negative effects.’ It has also created mass polypharmacy which I know (from a great deal of other research) does harm.
2: https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4493.full 3: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75888-8#:~:text=Hence%2C%20polypharmacy%20was%20associated%20with,cause%20death%20among%20elderly%20individuals.
