This website places cookies on your device to help us improve our service to you. To find out more about the cookies, see our Privacy and Cookies notice
ISD Scotland better information, better decisions, better health

Quality and Outcomes Framework

Information for Users of QOF Register and Prevalence Data

NHS National Services Scotland ISD Scotland & NHS National Services Scotland

Information for users of QOF register and prevalence data

QOF register data and "prevalence" rates are increasingly sought by a variety of people as a source of information on the level of different types of health problems in the population. This page provides further information on register and prevalence information from the QOF, including warnings to bear in mind when using the data.

Overview
Use of QOF prevalence data in QOF payments calculations
Warnings about the use of QOF register and prevalence figures for other purposes
National QOF prevalence estimates for Scotland - Table and commentary
Further information and interpretation on individual QOF registers

Overview

Prevalence is a measure of the frequency of a disease or health condition in a population at a particular point in time (and is different to incidence, which is a measure of the number of newly diagnosed cases within a particular time period).

Prevalence data within the QOF are collected in the form of practice "registers". A QOF register may count patients with one specific disease or condition, or it may include multiple conditions. There may also be other criteria for inclusion on a QOF register, such as age or date of diagnosis.

A QOF-reported prevalence rate for a practice is simply the total number of patients on the register, expressed as a proportion or percentage of the total number of patients registered with the practice. QOF prevalence rates are crude because they are not adjusted to account for patient age distribution or other factors that may differ between general practices. Furthermore, although registers may be restricted (e.g. to only include patients over a specified age) the QOF prevalence rate is based on the total number of persons registered with the practice (the practice list size) at one point in time.

Use of QOF prevalence data in QOF payments calculations

Prevalence data are used within the QOF to calculate practice payments within each of the clinical indicator groups. Specifically:

  • Points can only be awarded to a practice for a given clinical indicator group (for example, asthma) if the practice can produce a register of patients with that condition or group of conditions.
  • The number of pounds per point in each clinical domain area is adjusted up or down according to each practice's prevalence rate for the relevant QOF register, relative to the estimated national prevalence rate from the same register.

What follows is a brief summary on the use of prevalence data in QOF calculations. Further details can be found in the Scottish Government's General Medical Services Statement of Financial Entitlements documents, linked to from our QOF home page (the document is updated each year to reflect updates to the QOF and/or payment rules).

The aim of the prevalence adjustments in each of the clinical indicator groups is to deliver a more equitable distribution of payments in the light of different workloads that practices face in achieving the same number of points. Practices with a high prevalence of a specific condition or group of conditions will receive more pounds per point for the relevant indicator group than practices with a low prevalence of the same condition or group of conditions. However, for years up to and including 2009/10 the calculations were set such that even practices with very low prevalence from a given register still received a minimum payment for providing appropriate services for it. This minimum payment was based on a 5% cut-off being applied at the bottom of the prevalence range and any practice with prevalence below this was treated as having the same prevalence as the cut-off point. From 2010/11 practices are paid on actual prevalence, therefore this adjustment is no longer applied.

During calculation of QOF payments, the baseline number of pounds per point (£133.47 in 2013/14) is adjusted up or down within each clinical domain area according to each practice's prevalence for that disease or condition, relative to the estimated national prevalence (see below). The amount by which the pounds are adjusted up or down is known as the Adjusted Disease Prevalence Factor (ADPF). For example, if a practice has an ADPF of 1.20 then the adjusted pounds per point for asthma = £133.47 x 1.20 = £160.16.

The calculation of the ADPF uses, but is not based purely on, the practice's raw disease prevalence for a given condition. The raw disease prevalence for each practice is calculated by dividing the number of patients on the relevant disease register by the number of patients the practice has on its registered list. The prevalence data published here are shown as rates per 100 patients. For example:

A practice has 104 patients on its asthma disease register
Its total list size at 1st January 2014 was 2000
The raw prevalence estimate (per 100 patients) equals:
(104 / 2000) x 100 = 5.2

From 2004/05 to 2008/09, an adjustment was made to the prevalence of clinical indicators within a practice so that practices with a low prevalence would still receive remuneration associated with the costs of keeping a register and the collection of relevant QOF data. However, since this adjustment narrowed the range of prevalence that payment was made on, it also penalised practices with a high prevalence. Therefore for 2009/10 this adjustment was removed. The removal of this adjustment means that payment is now based on a practice's actual reported prevalence rate rather than a version transformed by taking its square root.

A practice's ADPF for each group of clinical indicators is calculated by comparing that practice's prevalence rate from each register with a national estimate. The national QOF prevalence estimate used in payment calculations is based on prevalence data recorded in the QOF payment calculation system (QMAS or QOF Calculator) on a date referred to in QOF as "National Prevalence Day". For each of the financial years 2004/05 to 2007/08 inclusive, National Prevalence Day was 14th February. From 2008/09 onwards National Prevalence Day was changed to 31st March. The change in date means that prevalence data now relate to the same date as the rest of the QOF data, whereas previously (for payment reasons) they were reported earlier. Practices that could not or did not provide prevalence data for National Prevalence Day (e.g. because their clinical IT systems could not be connected into the QOF payment calculation system at the time) were not included in the National Prevalence Day estimates.

A fuller explanation of the method used to calculate ADPFs can be found in the Scottish Government's General Medical Services Statement of Financial Entitlements documents, linked to from our QOF home page (the document is updated each year to reflect updates to the QOF and/or payment rules).

Warnings about the use of QOF prevalence figures for other purposes

Data on the prevalence of specific diseases or health conditions are an important element of the QOF. They can potentially be used to examine variations in the prevalence of the individual diseases and health conditions covered by the QOF, but they should be interpreted with caution. The main general points to note are listed below. Further notes about individual registers are given in the later section Further information and interpretation on individual QOF registers.

  • QOF prevalence rates are what is known as "raw" or "crude" rates - which means that they take no account of differences between practice populations in terms of their age or gender profiles, or other factors that influence the prevalence of health conditions. A QOF prevalence rate is simply the total number of patients on the register, expressed as a proportion or percentage of the total number of patients registered with the practice at one point in time. This could mean for example that one practice with an older population might appear to have higher prevalence rates for age-related conditions such as cancer or stroke than another practice with a younger population.
  • Some QOF registers are restricted to include only persons over a specific age. However, the QOF prevalence rates use as their denominator the total (all ages) number of patients registered to the practice at one point in time. Diabetes registers are based on patients aged 17 and over; epilepsy, chronic kidney disease, learning disabilities and new diagnosis of depression registers are based on patients aged 18 and over; and obesity registers are based on patients aged 16 and over. This means that for these conditions the QOF-reported prevalence will appear lower than would be the case if the age restriction was also applied to the population denominator.
  • Prevalence figures based on QOF registers may also differ from prevalence figures from other sources because of coding or definitional issues. For example, to be on the QOF diabetes register the type of diabetes (type 1 or type 2) must be specified by the practice. If the type is not specified the patient will not be counted in the register. Information on diabetes as reported elsewhere may not be subject to these restrictions.
  • Whilst some QOF registers count patients with one specific disease or condition, others count patients with one or more of a list of multiple conditions. As well as age, there may be other criteria for inclusion on a QOF register, such as date of diagnosis (this applies to the cancer register, for example).
  • Year-on-year changes in the size of QOF registers are influenced by various factors including: changes in demographic changes (such as an ageing population); improvements in case finding by practices; changes over time in the definition of the registers. This point is addressed in more detail below in the section giving Further information and interpretation on individual QOF registers.

QOF prevalence rates can also be affected by other factors such as:

  • health care seeking behaviour - people differ in the readiness with which they seek health care when they are not well;
  • access to services - people are more likely to consult for a condition if services are readily accessible;
  • diagnostic practice - it is impossible to completely standardise the methods clinicians use to make diagnoses;
  • data recording - there may be variations in the completeness and accuracy of practice records. .

These explanations all need to be considered when examining apparent variations in prevalence rates between practices, geographical areas and/or years..

National QOF prevalence estimates for Scotland - Table and commentary

The table below present's information on the reported national prevalence of the diseases or health conditions covered by the QOF registers for the seven years financial years 2004/05 to 2013/14. The full list of registers has been grouped according to whether the register definitions have stayed the same over the QOF years to date or whether they have been revised at some point.

This table, and all other tables on these web pages, shows Scotland-level estimates based on all prevalence data available in the QOF payment calculation system (QMAS or QOF Calculator) by the time QOF data were extracted for publication (the date of extraction is noted in each data table). This includes those practices whose register data were amended after National Prevalence Day. These are the prevalence data that are likely to be of greater interest to most people. However, these rates are not necessarily the same as the national prevalence rates used in QOF payment calculations. The rates used in payment calculations, which are calculated differently and may be based on data from fewer practices, are shown in an Excel version of the table, downloadable below.

Six QOF registers have had a consistent definition since they were introduced in April 2004. These are: Asthma, Cancer, Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Hypertension, Hypothyroidism and Stroke and Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA).

Four QOF registers maintained a consistent definition in 2004/05 and 2005/06 but were subject to revision from 2006/07. This means that the prevalence statistics for 2006/07 onwards are not directly comparable to those for earlier years. These four registers are: Diabetes Mellitus, Epilepsy, Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Mental Health.

A series of new registers were introduced to the QOF for 2006/07, of which seven retained a consistent definition through to 2013/14, which means that prevalence rates can be compared over a four year period. These registers are: Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Dementia, Heart Failure, Learning Disabilities and Obesity.

A further two registers, first included in the QOF for 2006/07, and were redefined for 2008/09. This means that for these registers, Palliative Care and Conditions Assessed for Smoking, prevalence is comparable between 2006/07 and 2007/08, and from 2008/09 onwards but is not comparable over the all years.

One register, Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, was introduced to the QOF for the first time in 2009/10. There had been no changes to this register so comparisons are valid from 2009/10 to 2013/14.

The register definition for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) was changed in 2011/12. This means that the prevalence for COPD in 2011/12 is not directly comparable to the prevalence for the condition in previous years.

The register definition for Depression was changed in 2012/13. This means that the prevalence for new patient diagnosed with depression in 2012/13 is not directly comparable to the prevalence for the condition in previous years.

Two register, Osteoporosis and Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD), were introduced to the QOF for the first time in 2012/13. There had been no changes to this register so comparisons are valid from 2012/13 to 2013/14.

One new register has been introduced to QOF in 2013/14 which is Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Further information on register definitions, and changes to them for 2006/07, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2011/12 can be found in the following documents:

Additional information on the prevalence of long-term conditions in Scotland can be found on the Scottish Public Health Observatory (ScotPHO) website, in the Scottish Health Survey and in the Practice Team Information (PTI) pages on the ISD website.

Commentary on the comparability of QOF and PTI data can be found in the PTI pages of the ISD website.

Download Excel fileQOF National Prevalence rates by Register and Year (April-March), Scotland [0.25Mb]

Further information and interpretation on individual QOF registers

For more information on why specific indicators have been included in QOF, by year, please refer to the links below:

Links to QOF Business Rules for specific indicators, by year are listed below (contains the technical requirements for selecting the appropriate register):

If you require more information for years prior to 2012/13 please contact us at nss.isdGeneralPractice@nhs.net.

Asthma

The prevalence statistics provided here are based on annual registers of practice patients with a diagnosis of asthma, excluding those who have had no prescription for asthma-related drugs in the last 12 months. Asthma remains a clinical area under the QOF, having been included in the framework from its first year, 2004/05. The current definition is consistent with previous definitions used since 2004/05. The QOF-reported national prevalence rate for asthma has risen from 5.4% in 2004/05 and 2005/06 to 5.9% for 2009/10 and 2010/11, to 6.0% in 2011/12 and to 6.1% in 2012/13 and 2013/14. The increase may have been due, at least in part, to improved case ascertainment by practices over time.

Further information on the occurrence of asthma in Scotland (including consultation rates in general practice in 2003/04 to 2011/12) is available on ISD's Practice Team Information (PTI) web pages.

Back to top

Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is a heart rhythm disorder. The QOF register definition applies to people with an initial event; paroxysmal (intermittent); persistent and permanent atrial fibrillation. Note that this register was introduced to the QOF in April 2006 so that there are now five years of comparable data. National prevalence rates in Scotland remained constant at 1.3 per 100 patients over the first three years before a slight rise to 1.4 per 100 for 2009/10 and 2010/11, and to 1.5 per 100 in 2011/12 and 2012/13. There has been a slight increase to 1.6 per 100 in 2013/14.

Back to top

Cancer

The QOF prevalence statistics provided are based on all cancers (excluding non-melanomatous skin lesions) but include only patients diagnosed after 1st April 2003. The current definition is consistent with previous patient selections used since 2004/05. Crude (non age-adjusted) national prevalence reported under the QOF has increased from 0.5% in 2004/05 to 2.2% in 2013/14. Because of the date cut-off in the definition of the register, this rise primarily reflects the cumulative accrual of new cancer cases onto practice registers with each passing year and does not provide information about any true increase in cancer prevalence.

Further information on the occurrence of cancer in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

This was a new register in 2009/10 and counts those who are at risk of developing Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) so that this risk can be assessed. It is not a count of those with the condition. The register definition is 'patients with a new diagnosis of hypertension (excluding those with pre-existing CHD, diabetes, stroke and/or TIA) recorded between the preceding 1 April to 31 March'.

Nationally, the number of patients that fit these criteria rose from 0.5% in 2009/10 by 0.5% each year to 2.5% in 2013/14. This increase reflects the cumulative nature of the register.

Back to top

Coronary Heart Disease

Coronary Heart Disease has remained a clinical area within the QOF, with consistent selection criteria, since QOF implementation in 2004/05. The QOF-reported national prevalence of CHD has remained stable since then, at around 4.3%.

Further information on the occurrence of CHD in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Chronic Kidney Disease

The QOF indicators for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) are based on a practice register of people aged over 18 with chronic kidney disease from any cause. Inclusion in the register is based on estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function. Those whose kidney function is assessed at stage 3-5 based on this test are eligible for inclusion on the register. Note that this register was introduced to the QOF in April 2006 so data are only available for six years.

For 2006/07 the final prevalence rate reported from QOF registers was 1.8%, much lower than the true figure expected to emerge over time. The establishment of CKD registers in Scotland was dependent on the existence of systems to support eGFR testing. Unfortunately, in some areas there were delays in introducing eGFR testing and as a result fewer patients than expected were included on CKD registers. By 2007/08 the rate had risen to 2.7%, an increase that was expected and likely to be due largely to improvements in case ascertainment, supported by the improved availability of eGFR testing in Scotland. Further increases to 3.0% for 2008/09, 3.2% in 2009/10; 3.3% in 2010/11 and 2011/12 are likely to reflect ongoing improvements in formal diagnosis of stage 3-5 Chronic Kidney Disease in Scotland. In 2012/13 & 2013/14 the prevalence for CKD reduced slightly with the prevalence recorded at 3.2%, the same as in 2009/10.

Further information on the occurrence of chronic kidney disease in Scotland is available on the following website:

Back to top

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

COPD has been a clinical area within the QOF since QOF implementation in 2004/05. For 2011/12 there was a change to the diagnostic threshold used to define those on the register meaning that data for this year isn't directly comparable to data from previous years. From 2004/05 to 2010/11 the prevalence of COPD as reported through general practice QOF registers has remained within a range of 1.8% - 2.0%. In 2011/12 and 2012/13 the prevalence was 2.1% and has increased to 2.2% in 2013/14..

For 2004/05 and 2005/06 QOF definitions did not allow patients to be on both asthma and COPD registers thus patients with a degree of reversible airways disease were not included on the COPD register. From 2006/07 the rules were revised to allow patients to be included on both COPD and asthma registers. Because of this any comparisons of COPD prevalence before and after this time, and prior to 2011/12, should be made with caution.

Further information on the prevalence of COPD in Scotland is available at:

Back to top

Dementia

The definition of this indicator applies to all people diagnosed with dementia either directly by the GP or through referral to secondary care. This register was introduced in April 2006 and there are no directly comparable statistics available for previous years. The final QOF reported national prevalence rates for 2006/07 to 2009/10 were 0.6% in each year with a slight increase to 0.7% in 2010/11 to 2012/13. In 2013/14 there was another slight increase to 0.8%.

Further information on the occurrence of dementia in Scotland is available on ISD's Practice Team Information (PTI) web pages.

Back to top

Depression

From 2006/07 to 2012/13 there were two different QOF registers and indicators related to depression, each based on different criteria. The first indicator relates to case finding of depression among patients with diabetes and/or Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). The second indicator relates to any patient newly diagnosed with depression since the preceding 1st April (e.g. for the 2010/11 QOF year, this would mean patients newly diagnosed after 1st April 2010). Both of the depression indicators were introduced to the QOF in April 2006 and there are no directly comparable statistics available for previous years in either case. From 2013/14 only the newly diagnosed indicator is collected with QOF

The retired register for the depression 1 indicator counts patients with diabetes and/or CHD. The indicator measures whether patients with either or both of these conditions have been assessed for depression. Nationally, 7.2% of patients registered to general practices at 14th February 2007 had diabetes, CHD, or both. This rose to 7.4% at 31st March 2009, 7.6% for 31st March 2010, 7.7% for 31st March 2011, 7.8% for 31st March 2012 and 8.0% for 31st March 2013. This rise is largely due to a rise in the prevalence figures for diabetes over the same time period (from 3.5% to 4.6%).

The remaining register for depression (previously known as depression 2) counts patients with newly diagnosed depression. The indicator then measures whether the severity of the depression has been assessed using an assessment tool validated for use in primary care. An unusual feature has been noted within the technical business rules that define how clinical IT systems should count the register sizes for this indicator. Although the measurement of achievement against this indicator excludes patients diagnosed prior to the preceding 1st April (e.g. 1st April 2010 in the case of the 2011/12 QOF year), the pre-exclusion register size is used for prevalence purposes. For some practices with a long history of recording depression electronically in the clinical record (and where the depression is not recorded as having been resolved), a larger register size will be reported in comparison to an otherwise equivalent practice that has not been recording depression cases electronically over as long a time period. The figures for 2006/07 indicated that nationally 6.2% of patients registered to general practices at 14th February 2007 had been newly diagnosed with depression at some point. The figures for 2008/09 are 7.7% rising to 8.6% for 2009/10 and to 9.0% in 2010/11 and 2011/12. These increases will, at least in part, be due to the cumulative nature of this register.

In 2012/13, a change was introduced to the technical business rules that exclude all patients identified prior to April 2006, which means that the latest figure is not comparable to previous years. The prevalence figure for 2012/13 is 5.2% and this has increase to 5.8% in 2013/14, which will, at least in part, be due to the cumulative nature of this register.

Further information on the occurrence of depression in Scotland is available on ISD's Practice Team Information (PTI) web pages.

Back to top

Diabetes Mellitus

Although indicators related to Diabetes Mellitus have existed in the QOF since April 2004, there has been a change in the selection criteria for counting patients on QOF diabetes registers. Since April 2006, the definition includes all patients aged 17 years and over with diabetes mellitus defined by clinical (Read) codes specific to Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. Previously there was a wider range of codes accepted under the definition although the age constraint has remained consistent. The prevalence statistics for 2006/07 onwards are therefore not directly comparable with those for 2004/05 and 2005/06.

It should also be noted that QOF prevalence rates use the whole practice population as their denominator, and in the case of diabetes do not exclude patients aged less than 17, even though the register itself is age limited. This has the effect of artificially lowering the prevalence rate, so that the prevalence rates for diabetes reported through the QOF are an underestimate of the true prevalence. The extent of the underestimate depends on the size of the practice population under 17 years.

The QOF-reported prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus has increased from 3.5% at 14th February 2007 to 4.8% at 31st March 2014. This increase may be due, at least in part, to improved case ascertainment by practices, but it is consistent with the increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Scotland reported elsewhere.

It should be further noted that although the practice must record whether the patient has Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, this level of detail is not recorded within QMAS or QOF Calculator (the national IT systems that support the calculation of QOF achievements and payments). Therefore the register size or prevalence rate cannot be split by type of diabetes.

Further information on the occurrence of diabetes in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Epilepsy

Although indicators for Epilepsy have existed in the QOF since April 2004, there has been a change in the selection criteria for eligible patients. Since April 2006, the definition of the register has included patients aged 18 and over, whereas previously it included those 16 and over. It should be noted that QOF prevalence rates use the whole practice population as their denominator, and do not exclude patients aged less than 18 (or 16). This has the effect of artificially lowering the prevalence rates reported for epilepsy through the QOF so that they are an underestimate of the true prevalence.

The prevalence statistics for 2006/07 onwards are therefore not directly comparable with those for 2004/05 and 2005/06. Between 2006/07 and 2012/13 the national prevalence rate derived from QOF registers in Scotland has remained consistent at 0.7%. In 2013/14 there has been a slight increase to 0.8%.

Further information on the occurrence of epilepsy in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Heart Failure

Patients with Heart Failure are included on two QOF registers, one of which is a subset of the other. The first of these registers counts all patients coded by general practices as having heart failure. This register, and accompanying indicators, was introduced to the QOF in April 2006. The second register counts the subset of patients who have heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). LVD was included as a register on the original QOF (2004/05 and 2005/06), but at that time the register related to patients on the coronary heart disease register who also had LVD. LVD was a subset of CHD in previous years, but all these patients are now counted under heart failure registers. This means that LVD rates for the first two years of the QOF are not directly comparable with LVD rates for 2006/07 to 2012/13. In 2013/14 there was a change to the indicator ruleset for the LVD indicator which changed the time period from 15 months to 12 months. This means that the data for previous years is no longer comparable.

National QOF prevalence figures for heart failure between 2006/07 and 2013/14 were consistently around 0.8 - 0.9% and the rates for LVD were 0.6% between 2006/07 and 2012/13 but has dropped to 0.3% in 2013/14.

National QOF prevalence figures for heart failure between 2006/07 and 2012/13 were consistently around 0.8 - 0.9% and rates for LVD were 0.6%.

Back to top

Hypertension

Hypertension (high blood pressure) has remained a clinical area within the QOF with consistent selection criteria since QOF implementation in 2004/05. The final national prevalence figure for 2005 was 11.5%, and this has risen since to a figure of 13.9% for 2014. This increase may be due, at least in part, to improved case ascertainment by practices over time. However the risk of hypertension rises sharply with age and the figures are likely to reflect a real increase in the numbers of people with hypertension in Scotland, a country with a rising proportion of older people.

Further information on the occurrence of hypertension in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Hypothyroidism

Hypothyroidism (having an under-active thyroid) has remained a clinical area within the QOF, with consistent criteria for counting patients, since the QOF was introduced in 2004/05. Prevalence rates for this condition as reported through the QOF have risen gradually from 2.8% in 2005 to 3.7% for 2012 and 2013. In 2013/14 there has been a slight increase to 3.8%. This increase may be due, at least in part, to improved case ascertainment by practices over time but is also likely to reflect the gradual ageing of the population in Scotland (as this condition is common in older age groups).

Further information on the occurrence of hypothyroidism in Scotland (including consultation rates in general practice in 2003/04 to 2009/10) is available on ISD's Practice Team Information (PTI) web pages.

Back to top

Learning Disabilities

This register includes all people aged 18 and over with learning disabilities. Note that this register was introduced to the QOF in April 2006 and that there are no directly comparable statistics available for previous years. It should be noted that QOF prevalence rates use the whole practice population as their denominator, and do not exclude patients aged less than 18. This means that the prevalence rates for learning disabilities as reported through the QOF appear lower than they would be if this age group was excluded from the population denominator.

The QOF-reported national prevalence of Learning Disabilities has increased from 0.4% in 2007 to 0.5% for 2014. These figures are both lower than estimates of overall population-based prevalence of learning disabilities as given in QOF guidance (around 2% across all ages). However, a high proportion of patients with learning disabilities may not be recorded by practices as having such disabilities, for example if these patients do not attend the practice for other reasons.

Further information on learning disabilities is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Mental Health

Although indicators for Mental Health have existed in the QOF since April 2004, there has been a change in the selection criteria used to count patients on QOF mental health registers. Since April 2006, the definition has included only patients with serious mental illness, defined as schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder or other psychoses. Previously, patient selection was based on more a more generalised set of mental health conditions and on the further condition that the patient required, and had consented to, regular follow-up. The prevalence statistics for 2006/07 onwards, although comparable with each other, are not therefore directly comparable with those for 2004/05 and 2005/06.

The prevalence rates for this selected set of mental health conditions, as derived from QOF registers, remained consistent from 2006/07 to 2010/11 at 0.8%, rising slightly to 0.9% for 2011/12 to 2013/14.

Further information on the occurrence of mental health problems in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Obesity

The definition of obesity used for the QOF applies to all people aged 16 years and over with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of at least 30 (that is greater than or equal to 30kg per height in metres squared), recorded in the previous 15 months. Note that this register was introduced to the QOF in April 2006 and that there are no directly comparable statistics available for previous years.

The QOF-reported national prevalence of obesity for 2006/07 was 7.0%; this rose to 7.3% for 2007/08, was back down to 7.0% for 2008/09 and 2009/10, was up to 7.7% in 2010/11 and increased further to 8.6% in 2011/12. In 2012/13 the prevalence of obesity was 8.7%; These figures are much lower than the generally accepted rates (for example the 2010 Scottish Health Survey reported that 27.4% of men and 28.9% of women aged over 16 years were obese). A small part of the difference is due to the fact that QOF prevalence rates use the whole practice population as their denominator and do not exclude patients aged less than 16, meaning that the prevalence rates are lower than they would be if this age group was excluded from the population denominator. Another likely reason is that not all people who are obese are recorded as such by general practices, particularly if they are young and have not experienced any particular health-related difficulties. Since many of those who are obese are not recorded on practice registers, the increase in the QOF prevalence of obesity to 2011/12 is likely to be due to improvements in the ascertainment of obesity.

Further information on obesity is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Osteoporosis

Introduced in April 2012 for patients aged 50 and over who have been recorded with a fragility fracture after 1st April. An osteoporotic fragility fractures can cause substantial pain and severe disability, and are associated with decreased life expectancy. Osteoporotic fragility fractures occur most commonly in the spine (vertebrae), hip (proximal femur) and wrist (distal radius). They also occur in the arm (humerus), pelvis, ribs and other bones. Fractures of the hands and feet (for example, metacarpal and metatarsal fractures) are not generally regarded as osteoporotic fragility fractures. The 2012/13 QOF-reported prevalence rate for Osteoporosis was 0.1% and is 0.2% in 2013/14.

Back to top

Palliative Care

The definition of the palliative care register has changed since it was first introduced in April 2006. In 2006/07 and 2007/08 it applied to all practice patients aged 18 and over who were identified as being in need of palliative or supportive care. From April 2008, the age restriction was removed so that the register now includes patients of all ages. This means that the figures for 2008/09 onwards are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. This register is particularly difficult to interpret as by its very nature patients join and leave the list over a short period of time. Therefore, the number of patients included on a practice palliative care register is a snapshot of the situation at the time the register was taken (14th February 2007, 14th February 2008, 31st March 2009, 31st March 2010, 31st March 2011 and 31st March 2012 respectively) and may not be a true reflection of practice prevalence throughout the rest of the year.

The 2011/12 to 2013/14 QOF-reported prevalence rate for palliative care was 0.2%. As palliative care registers are subject to particular fluctuations over time, the Adjusted Disease Prevalence Factor (ADPF - see Use of QOF prevalence data in QOF payments calculations above, for further explanation of this term) has not been applied in Scotland for calculating QOF payments in relation to palliative care.

Back to top

Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD)

Introduced in April 2012 this set of indicators for PAD aims to improve the identification and management of PAD and ensure all patients, including those without established risk factors already covered in QOF, are managed for their cardiovascular risk. The 2012/13 QOF-reported prevalence rate for PAD was 0.9% and has remained the same in 2013/14.

Back to top

Conditions Assessed for Smoking

The register to support two "new" smoking indicators (actually a reworking of several smoking indicators included in the original QOF) was introduced to the QOF in April 2006. However it is important to stress that a national prevalence of smoking can not be derived from this register or previous indicators. The smoking indicator sets relate to the smoking status of people with one or more selected chronic conditions. The 'conditions assessed for smoking' register identifies how many patients at each practice have one or more of these conditions.

For 2006/07 and 2007/08 the register counted patients with any of the following conditions: Coronary heart disease, stroke or TIA, hypertension, diabetes, COPD or asthma.

In 2008/09, the definition of the register changed now includes not only the conditions listed above but also added the following: Schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder or other psychoses.

The QOF-reported national prevalence of the listed chronic conditions for 2006/07 was 20.4% - that is to say, around one fifth of patients registered to general practices had one or more of the six conditions included in the register at the time. By 2007/08 the equivalent figure had risen slightly to 22.0%, likely to be due mainly to increases in the recorded prevalence of hypertension and diabetes.

In 2008/09, the first year that the extra mental health conditions were included in the register, the figure was 23.3%, rising slightly each year to the latest prevalence of 24.7% in 2013/14. The prevalence figures for 2008/09 to 2013/14 are not comparable to those from earlier years because of the inclusion of these extra conditions.

Further information on smoking is available on the following websites:

Back to top

Stroke and Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA)

Stroke and TIA has remained a clinical area within the QOF, with consistent selection criteria for including patients on the register, since the QOF was introduced in 2004/05. Reported national prevalence rose from 1.8% for 2004/05 to 2.0% in 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09. For 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13, a prevalence of 2.1% has been recorded. The latest figure is 2.2% in 2013/14. The increase in the initial years of the QOF may have been due, at least in part, to improved case ascertainment by practices over time and an ageing population in Scotland.

Further information on the occurrence of stroke in Scotland is available on the following websites:

Back to top

© ISD Scotland 2010
Information Services Division,
NHS National Services Scotland,
Gyle Square,
1 South Gyle Crescent,
Edinburgh EH12 9EB,
Tel: 0131 275 7777
nss.csd@nhs.net

About Information Services Division | Contact Us | Accessibility | Complaints
Copyright | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | Site Map | Freedom of Information | Data Protection

ISD is a division of NHS NSS
Working at the very heart of the health service, NSS delivers services critical to frontline patient care and in support of the efficient and effective operation of NHS Scotland. Visit the NSS Website for more information