BMJ 2007;335:627-628 (29 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.39346.699907.BE
Letters
PRP for GPs
Summary of responses
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The editorial by cardiologist David S Wald on performance related pay (PRP) in primary care sparked 12 responses, mostly from aggrieved UK general practitioners (GPs).1 2 United in their opposition to Wald's suggestions for a "revised" quality and outcomes framework (QOF), several of the respondents point out that a hospital consultant may not be best placed to write about issues affecting primary care and the increasing complexity of primary care consultations.
Many are compelled to clarify that the QOF payments are not incentives for the GPs themselves. There may not be enough awareness of the changed ways of working and workloads that GPs have adopted, which, combined with their achievements in implementing new systems and targets, may justify a different system of pay and incentives. And measuring risk factors is only a part of preventive measures, not an end in itself.
Andrew Wijnberg, a GP in Birmingham, takes issue with Wald's
Birte Twisselmann, assistant editor, bmj.com
BMJ, London WC1H 9JR
btwisselmann@bmj.com
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
- Problems with performance related pay in primary care
- David S Wald
BMJ 2007 335: 523.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Performance related pay
- Peter S L Barling
bmj.com, 5 Oct 2007 [Full text]
This article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Read responses to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Find similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
