Skip to main content

Table 1 Indicator testing protocol feedback form

From: Framework and indicator testing protocol for developing and piloting quality indicators for the UK quality and outcomes framework

Attribute

Summary of method

Clarity

• RAND Appropriateness Method ratings *

Necessity

• RAND Appropriateness Method ratings *

Acceptability

• Risks, issues, relative impact, and uncertainties (interviews with practice staff)

Feasibility

• 'Technically feasiblility' in current family practice systems and whether supported by current methods of data extraction for QOF (data extraction in all family practice clinical systems)

Reliability

• Reproducible in testing (data extraction: test-retest)

Implementation

• Baseline and potential change in baseline;evidence of sensitivity to change (data extraction);

 

• Exception reporting/gaming (interviews with practice staff);

 

• Changes in practice organisation; potential barriers; workload (interviews with practice staff and workload diaries)

 

• Unintended consequences (interviews with practice staff)

Changes to any existing QOF indicators

• Summary of any suggested changes to existing QOF indicators as a result of piloted indicators

Changes in wording of the indicator(s)

• Summary of any suggested changes to indicator wording

Cost effectiveness

• Summary of evidence of cost effectiveness (cost-effectiveness modelling)

Overall recommendation

1) no major barriers/risks/issues/uncertainties

 

2) some barriers/risks/issues/uncertainties but okay

 

3) major barriers/risks/issues/uncertainties preclude it

  1. Summary feedback table of indicator testing protocol
  2. *RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method overall panel rating of ≥ 7 with agreement (80% of panellist's ratings within the 3-point tertile of the overall median)