Rates of exception reporting need to be addressed

doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1272

BMJ 2005;331:1272 (26 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1272

Letter

Rates of exception reporting need to be addressed

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Kenny notes that 93% of general practices achievedthe maximum points for diabetes care.¹ A matter of concern isthe apparently inconsistent manner in which the targets werereached.

Data in the public domain (www.ic.nhs.uk/services/qof/data/)show that some practices that achieved maximum points had excludeda sizeable proportion of their target population, using theexception reporting facility that allows individual patientsto be declared unsuitable. The wide disparities in exceptionreporting between some neighbouring practices may sometimeshave a valid explanation, but satisfaction with the qualityand outcomes framework will hinge on clarification of what isacceptable and the adoption of uniform standards.

Options available to primary care trusts range from provisionof supportive advice to the use of the post payment verificationsystem. Unless this is done, a substantial number of patientsmay receive suboptimal care, and practices that have hit theirtargets without resorting . . . [Full text of this article]

John S Corcoran, general practitioner

Torrington Speedwell Practice, London N12 9SS
jscorcoran@nhs.net