A defence of CQC, from an affected practiceBMJ 2015; 350 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h285 (Published 20 January 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h285
- Hendrik J Beerstecher, general practitioner principal1
My practice is marked down by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on the percentage quinolone to non-quinolone antibiotics prescribed, even though we prescribe fewer quinolones than surrounding practices that are marked as “OK.” This is because we prescribe even fewer non-quinolones than surrounding practices, which results in a higher numerator:denominator ratio.
As McCartney indicates, another problem in the choice of CQC indicators is that of the small disease registers, which invalidates results at practice level.1 For example, if a practice has four patients with a condition and the target is 80%, the effective target for this small practice is 100% (3/4 is only 75% and 4/4 is 100%).
However, it is laudable that the commission published its tool so that it can be improved, rather than using it surreptitiously. There will always be teething problems, because of the law of unintended consequences.
Only in hindsight can the tool be evaluated—whether it really identifies poorly performing practices—but the commission has to start somewhere.
Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h285
Competing interests: None declared.
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial