Glasgow LMC & NHS GG&C GMS Contract Meeting 6th June 2013 LMC CENTENARY YEAR 1913 - 2013 Glasgow LMC Limited 7.00 pm Agenda Welcome and Introductions Dr Michael Haughney - Chairman, LMC 7.05 pm Scottish Patient Safety Programme Climate Survey Dr Paul Ryan - Clinical Director, Glasgow City CHP (NE Sector) Trigger Tool Rachel Bruce – Lead Clinical Pharmacist, Interface Pharmacist 7.30 pm Anticipatory Care Planning Why? What? How? When? Dr John Nugent – Clinical Director, Glasgow City CHP (NW Sector) 7.50 pm QoF Clinical Domain Dr John Ip – Medical Secretary, Glasgow LMC 8.10 pm Questions – Panel Discussion 8.30 pm Dr Paul Ryan, Rachel Bruce, Dr John Nugent, Dr John Ip, Contracts Manager Close Glasgow LMC Limited Tom Clackson GMS Scottish Patient Safety Programme -Safety Climate Survey Dr Paul Ryan, Clinical Director, NE Sector Glasgow City CHP 6th June 2013 National Objectives •To reduce the number of events which cause avoidable harm to people from healthcare delivered in any primary care setting. •All NHS territorial boards and 95% of primary care clinical teams will be developing their safety culture and achieving reliability in 3 high-risk areas by 2016. Work streams Interventions relating to 1.Safer Medicines •Safe and reliable prescribing, monitoring and administration of high alert medications (e.g. DMARDs, warfarin, insulin, lithium •Reducing high risk prescribing – data / alerts •Medication reconciliation 2.Safe and reliable patient care across the interface and at home. •Management of test results •Communication at point of referral •Handling written communication 3.Leadership and Safety Culture •Promoting a culture of safety and learning using Trigger Tool, Safety Climate Survey, safety walk rounds •Promoting organisational learning from Significant Event Analysis (SEA) •Building capacity and capability to support the programme •Ensuring patients become partners in making care safer. Guidance Patient Safety Indicators Indicator PS 1 PS 2 The practice conducts two case note reviews, using a validated tool, to detect patient safety incidents, meets to discuss the results, and shares a reflective report on actions and themes that arise from this with the Health Board The practice conducts a safety climate survey with all staff, clinical and non-clinical, using a validated tool, meets to discuss the results, and shares a reflective report on actions that arise from this with the Health Board Points 6 5 Adverse Event Causation Technical Factors (30-20%) Accident Causation (70-80%) Human Factors = Safety Culture + Operator Behaviour What is Safety Culture? Why is a strong Safety Culture Important? A strong safety culture essential to safe reliable care in any workplace Francis Report and Culture • There was an atmosphere of fear of adverse repercussions • There was a lack of openness • It did not listen sufficiently to its patients and staff or correct deficiencies highlighted • Above all it failed to tackle an insidious negative culture involving tolerance of poor standards How does the SafeQuest Safety Climate Survey work in practice? Safety Climate Survey • • • • • On line Practice centred Measurement Diagnosis Catalyst for change 5 key factors: • Teamwork • Workload • Communication • Leadership • Safety systems and learning Not the Safety Climate Survey! Distribute- who to? • We recommend that all practice staff and anyone involved in or considered part of the practice team complete the survey. However, it remains the discretion of individual practices to decide who they invite to participate. “Weren’t as good as we thought we were” “Mismatch between what the clinical and non clinical staff thought” “Prompted some very open discussion” Positive Change Increased frequency of staff meetings. At least one doctor to attend staff meeting. 2 way communication over a variety of issues. Newsletter/minutes after each meeting. Quarterly meeting involving whole practice. Reflection Sheet • What positive aspects of your team’s safety culture were highlighted in the report and your discussions? • What aspects of your safety culture do you as a team feel you could improve? • What steps will you take to improve these aspects of your safety culture? • What else might you change to improve your safety culture? • Would you like any support or guidance to make changes in your practice? If so, what would be useful? Climate Survey http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/safetyclimate.aspx http://gpsafetyclimate.com Knowledge Page http://www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk Medicine Safety & Improvement in General Medical Practice Trigger Review of Clinical Records “The Trigger Tool” Dr Rachel Bruce Lead Clinical Pharmacist – Interface Prescribing Presenting on behalf on NES! Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Content and Purpose of Session Medicine Content • What is the Trigger Tool? • Trigger Review Documentation • What do you need to do? Purpose • To describe the Trigger Review concept and provide brief overview in applying the method • Signpost you to the experts! Learning outcomes • Understand the principle of the Trigger Review Method • Know where to access the relevant support/documentation Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Why? Medicine Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Context Medicine • Patient Safety • The trigger review process forms part of the Scottish Patient Safety Programme in Primary Care • Incorporated into the 2013/14 GMS contract: “patient safety” indicators • PS1 (Quality Improvement) = “trigger tool” review • 6 points Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine The “Trigger Tool” Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland What is the Trigger Tool? Medicine A simple checklist for a number of selected clinical “triggers” The trigger tool facilitates a rapid structured, focused review of a selected sample of clinical records in the practice Using these “triggers” can potentially identify previously undetected patient safety incidents Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Safety Incidents in GP – Feedback Sources e.g. Ombudsman Reports Incident Reporting Patients Medicine Colleagues Self-report Complaints Clinical Records SEA Pharmacist Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland What is a trigger review of clinical records? Medicine • • Trigger review is simply a method of audit that involves the systematic evaluation of a small batch of patient records by a clinician (GP or Practice Nurse) A ‘Trigger’ is a pre-defined prompt or sign in the record that MAY indicate that a patient safety incident has occurred – roughly defined as any incident, however minor, where a patient was harmed, may have been (i.e. a near miss), or could be in future (i.e. a latent risk) • Detected Trigger(s): a signal for the reviewer to undertake a more in-depth review of the record to determine if evidence of a safety incident exists • For example, an INR>5.0 (a trigger) was detected by a clinical reviewer - further review of the record found evidence of the patient having suffered a bleed and being admitted to a local hospital (a patient safety incident) • If a safety incident is uncovered, the reviewer makes a professional judgement on whether it was avoidable or not, how severe it was and if it originated in primary care or elsewhere • This grading helps to pinpoint incidents where learning and improvement are a greater priority - may be necessary if multiple incidents are detected Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland What are the “Triggers” in Clinical Records? ‘‘Triggers’’ are defined as easily identifiable flags, occurrences or prompts in patient records that alert reviewers to actual or potential safety incidents (undetected) Sections in GP Records Triggers Clinical encounters (documented consultations) ≥3 consultations in 7 consecutive days Medication-related (acute and chronic prescribing) Repeat medication item stopped Clinical read codes High, medium, low, allergies New ‘high’ priority or allergy read code Correspondence Section Secondary care, other providers OOH / A&E attendance / Hospital admission Investigations Requests and results eGFR reduce <5, Hb < 10.0, INR > 5.0 Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine Detecting Patient Safety Incidents in GP Clinical Records: Proof of Principle • Two GPs reviewed 500 randomly selected electronic patient records (100 x 5 Scottish GP practices): 12-month period. • Clinical triggers developed and tested help to pinpoint safety incidents • 9.5% of records contained evidence of unintentional harm to patients • 60+% were judged to be preventable • Most cases low to moderate severity, all severe cases originated in secondary care • Scope for safety-related learning and improvement (in the same way as SEA or Audit) Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine PS1 Indicator: Quality Improvement 1.1. Aim: to identify and reduce patient safety incidents within practices 1.2. Background: use of rapid structured case note review using a trigger tool in high risk patient groups can identify patient safety incidents and near misses which practice teams can learn from and so reduce the risk of future patients from being harmed Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine When and What do we need to do? Medicine 1.3 Using the NES primary care Trigger Tool each practice will complete a structured case note review twice in 2013/14, at least three months apart Review to be conducted on 25 patients each time (x 2) from the recommended risk groups: • Patients on DMARD therapy • Patients with diagnosis of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction • Patients on Warfarin therapy • Patients with a higher SPARRA score e.g over 40 • Recent admissions with COPD Care home residents • Patients on chronic District nursing caseload • Patients aged 75 years on 6 or more medications Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland How do we do it - The trigger tool process Medicine STEP 1: Planning and preparation STEP 2: Review a random sample of records STEP 3: Reflection and further action Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Step 1: Plan Medicine - Decide on patient group e.g. patients on warfarin - Run search and randomly select 25 patients - Decide if you want to add an optional trigger e.g acute Rx of a NSAID - Agree the time frame to look for triggers. This should ideally be a 3 calendar month period with a preceding month’s gap from the current date (for example in Sep 2012 I looked at May, June and July 2012 time frame) - Identify who will undertake the trigger tool review Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Step 2: Review. How to Undertake a Trigger Review Medicine When examining a record, the reviewer looks to answer the following 5 questions: 1. Can triggers be detected? • If yes, the reviewer examines the relevant section of the record in more detail to determine if the patient came to any harm. • If no, move onto the next record - average review time is 2 to 3 minutes 2. Did harm occur? • If yes, move onto the next question on the proforma sheet. • If none is detected, move onto the next record. After 20 minutes if unable to decide if harm occurred you ignore the record and move on. 3. What was the severity of harm detected? • The reviewer should rate the severity of every incidence detected 4. Was the detected harm incident preventable? • The reviewer should determine whether the detected incident was preventable based on a combination of evidence found and professional judgement. 5. Where did the harm incident originate? • The circumstances leading to the incident may have originated in primary or secondary care, or a combination of both. Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Step 3: Reflect Reflection can be at different levels and is the most important part of the trigger review process Patient level: acknowledge, apologise, audit, consider interventions to prevent recurrence Practitioner level: identify any PDP/CPD needs, complete TT process, submit for appraisal Practice level: share, reflect, discuss findings, prioritise any incidents and possible interventions, compare findings to previous reviews Interface: should any incidents be reported through local or national systems The indicator requires practices meet to discuss the results, and share a reflective report on actions and themes that arise from this with the Health Board. Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Medicine Medicine Repeat the process (steps 1-3) on your chosen patient group (25 different patients) after a minimum time period of 3 months has elapsed Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Examples of improvements made during trigger review: Medicine 1. Nephrotoxic medication discontinued. 2. Drug dosage (warfarin) adjusted. 3. Referral letter to secondary care done (x3). 4. Allergy or adverse reaction code updates. 5. Medication reviews done. 6. Medication adjustments made. 7. Initiated follow up appointment for patients requiring review. 8. Cardiotoxic drug discontinued. 9. Updated notes with investigation. 10. Follow up blood test arranged. Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland To Summarise….. Medicine • Quick and Structured • Clinical triggers help you to navigate your records quickly • Looking for evidence of (undetected) safety incidents/latent risks • Reflection, learning and improvements made following the trigger review is the key part of the process - help you direct safetyrelated learning and improvement • Links with SEA and Quality Improvement • Evidence for QOF, Appraisal and GPST etc. • Tested with large groups of GPs, Practice Nurses and GP Trainees Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland …and finally Medicine • The focus is patient safety incidents and not error. Ask yourself: ‘Would I have wanted this to happen to me or my family?’ • Only review the specific period in the record (3-months). • Choose full calendar months to facilitate the review. • The maximum time spent on reviewing any record should be twenty minutes. The objective is to detect ‘obvious’ problems, rather than every single episode. • Most records do not contain triggers or evidence of incidents – these only take a few minutes to review • If there is reasonable doubt whether a safety incident occurred, the incident should not be recorded. • Use the team to assist in searching (admin) for and reviewing (nurse) records Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Resources Medicine ONLINE RESOURCES: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/patient_safety/sp sp_primary_care_resources/trigger_tool.aspx http://www.nes.scot.nhs.uk/education-and-training/by-themeinitiative/patient-safety-and-clinical-skills/tools-and-techniques/safetyand-improvement-in-primary-care.aspx#Trigger%20Tool TRAINING: Glasgow City CHP RCGP Quality Improvement Training – 13th June 2013. Hampden Park THE EXPERTS! Dr Carl de Wet: carl.dewet@nes.scot.nhs.uk Dr John McKay: john.mckay@nes.scot.nhs.uk Dr Paul Bowie: paul.bowie@nes.scot.nhs.uk Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Anticipatory Care Planning 6th June John Nugent Clinical Director 51 Guidance to date • Document 4: December/January • ACP ‘Summary Guidance…’ April/May • Scottish QOF Guidance May 52 Document 4 • Improving Care for Patients at High Risk of Emergency Admission • ‘…appropriate ACP can improve the quality of care, reduce the risk of medication harm and either (or both) the number of future admissions and lengths of stay…’ • ‘As poly-pharmacy can significantly increase the risks (of admission/harm)…it has been agreed as appropriate to include’ 53 Document 4 • Support to practices; • ACPs uploaded/accessed/utilised (added to?) • Support Community Nursing Teams (members of the primary care team) to participate in developing ACPs and attending MDTs • Prescribing support…to participate in polypharmacy reviews • Data on bed days utilisation • Local development support 54 ‘Summary Guidance’ • Improving the quality of care; • ‘Anticipatory care planning encourages people to adopt a ‘thinking ahead’ approach and to have greater control and choice by planning for what their preferred support and care interventions would be in the event of a future flare-up or deterioration in their condition, or a carer crisis.’ 55 Summary Guidance • Identifying patients for ACP and Poly-pharmacy Reviews • Using a SPARRA risk threshold of between 20% and 60% will generate a cohort of around 5% of patients in the practice to fulfil the QP006 indicator • Working down from an ‘upper ceiling’ of those with a 60% risk score will enable the practice to improve outcomes for people most likely to benefit from an Anticipatory Care Plan and a poly-pharmacy review. • This will complement other local ACP initiatives that target cohorts with greater than 60% SPARRA risk 56 Summary guidance • Patients < 60% SPARRA risk more likely to be engaged with the practice team than active on the community nursing caseload i.e. mobile • Interventions < 60% represent earlier intervention likely to reduce escalation of dependency and to optimise adherence to medicines. 57 Summary Guidance • Scope to apply clinical judgement to what constitutes 'at risk of emergency admission' ; may be patients who would benefit from an ACP but do not have a risk score within the risk thresholds specified • The Key Information Summary (KIS); tool by which practices create and share (with consent) ACPs • Summary of medical history/patient wishes, replaces paper based faxing between GPs and OOH • More generic version of the electronic Palliative Care Summary (ePCS). 58 Summary Guidance • Current ePCS patient information will transfer automatically to KIS but needs checked once KIS is switched on (ePCS patients that transfer automatically to KIS will not count as part of the cohort required for QP006 and QP007) • NHS24, SAS, A&E, OOH and Acute Admission Areas already have access to KIS • Access in other acute areas/departments depends on Board PMS systems and clinical portal developments • Flow chart included 59 Poly-pharmacy • 50% drugs not taken as prescribed • 5-17% admissions due to adverse reactions • If on multiple medications more side effects • Potential harm of drug may outweigh benefit QOF QP; QP004(S), 7 points • QP004(S). The contractor meets internally to review data on emergency admissions, for patients on the contractor's registered list, provided by the NHS Board and the learning from at least 25 per cent of the Anticipatory Care Plans (ACPs) completed for QP007(S) • Template for reporting will be agreed nationally 61 QOF QP; QP005(S), 17 points • QP005(S). The contractor participates in an external peer review with either a group of local practices, or practices from within the board area, to compare its data on emergency admissions and to share the learning from at least 25 per cent of the Anticipatory Care Plans (ACPs) completed for QP007(S), and proposes areas for internal practice improvement and service design improvements for the NHS Board. 62 QOF QP; QP006(S), 5 points • QP006(S). The contractor produces a list of 5 per cent of patients in the practice, who are predicted to be at significant risk of emergency admission or unscheduled care. This list can be produced using a risk profiling tool accessible to practices e.g. SPARRA, or where this is not available/required (by local agreement), alternative arrangements can be agreed between the NHS Board and LMC. 63 • QOF QP; QP007(S), 30 points QP007(S). The contractor identifies a minimum of 15 per cent (in 2014/15, 30 per cent) of those patients from the list produced in indicator QP006(S) who would most benefit from an Anticipatory Care Plan (the ACP must include a poly-pharmacy review), be shared with the local out of hours service and has an appropriate review date. The frequency of each patient’s review should be determined in the light of their clinical and care needs. The contractor will be responsible for ensuring that an appropriate system is in place for monitoring and reviewing the patients identified in this cohort. 64 QOF QP; QP008(S), 10 points • QP008(S). The contractor holds at least 4 meetings during the year to review the needs of the relevant patients in the practice ACP cohort, to agree any required changes in the patient management and to share learning/ identify learning needs. These meetings should be open to multi-disciplinary professionals who support the practice’s patients 65 • QOF QP; QP009(S), 10 points QP009(S). The contractor produces and submits a report to the Board before 15 March 2014 on internal practice and wider NHS Board system changes that may benefit patients with Anticipatory Care Plans (ACPs). The report should include Significant Events Reviews (SERs) on 1/1000, to a maximum of 3 patients per practice, of patients with ACPs from the cohort in QP007(S), who were admitted during the QOF year, after their ACP had been created. If less than the required number of patients with ACPs were admitted during the QOF year then the practice should write SERs of the care of an equivalent number of these patients who remained in the community. 66 Summary • Patient centred care; closer to home, reduced harm • Carers; communication, support • Practices; supports review, professionally satisfying, reduces ‘chaos’ (use) • Boards; reduced admissions/lengths of stay • Improves interface working • Not about keeping anyone out of hospital who needs hospital 67 Issues - now • • • • • • • SPARRA; ‘push not pull’ Review and decide who would most benefit See in surgery/home KIS; EMIS now, VISION 2 weeks MDTs; membership, review Poly-pharmacy review; overlap with LES ‘Face-to-face’ 68 Poly-pharmacy; overlap with LES • Practices should generally only make one claim for payment for a poly-pharmacy medication review, per patient, during 2013/14 • Exceptional cases may arise when an ACP/PP should be developed after a Poly-pharmacy LES review has occurred or vice versa • Payment can only be claimed on behalf of the same patient for a Poly-pharmacy LES and a ACP poly-pharmacy medication review during 2013/14 if; a. there are 2 distinct reviews recorded in the patient’s record b. there is clear clinical justification to demonstrate the need for a repeat review for the same patient during the lifetime of the 2013/14 Poly-pharmacy LES Clinical Justification • The clinical justification would include a change in a patient`s clinical status due to one or more of the following occurring; 1. Hospital admission at least 1 month after the first polypharmacy review (ACP/PP or PP LES) had taken place 2. New clinical diagnosis 3. Deterioration in existing clinical condition requiring 3 or more either changes to drug or drug dose (oral or parenteral medication only) 4. Patient needing to go onto the palliative care register Issues - later • Role of DN/PN/Pharmacy support? • Learning? • Board support? 71 Information held on KIS • Significant Diagnoses and PMH • Prognosis • Medication and allergies • Current Care Needs • Help at home (e.g. Social Services / Care Packages) • Legal Issues (e.g. AWIA, Power of Attorney) • Preferred Place Care • End of Life Care wishes • DNA-CPR information • Free-text Anticipatory Care Plan Example of a KIS which has been developed over a period of time? Summary of main issues Summary of main issues Plan of action in event of a deterioration Summary of main issues Plan of action in event of a deterioration Medication that can be used as PRN Summary of main issues Plan of action in event of a deterioration Medication that can be used as PRN Details of other professionals involved in care Summary of main issues Plan of action in event of a deterioration Medication that can be used as PRN Details of other professionals involved in care Contact details of family member Information available on KIS QOF Clinical Domain 2013/14 Dr John Ip Glasgow LMC QOF Changes • • • • • New Domain- Rheumatoid Arthritis New Clinical Indicators Increases in thresholds All 15 month targets now 12 months Numbering changes Glasgow LMC New Work • • • • • • Rheumatoid Arthritis domain 4 indicators- 18 points Register (1 point) Review (5 points) CVD Risk (7 points) Fracture Risk (5 points) Glasgow LMC New Clinical Indicators • DM dietician review, referral to Structure learning programme • DM- ED screening, advice & treatment • COPD- O2 sat for Grade 3 and above • Depression- BPS assessment for new patients, 10-35 day review after diagnosis Glasgow LMC New Clinical Indicators • CVD-PP SCOT-PASQ for patients with HT diagnosed after 1 April 2009 • Smoking- transfer from Information 5 Glasgow LMC Atrial Fibrillation AF001 5 Register. No change from AF1 AF002 10 AF003 6 AF004 6 CHADS2 Score. 15 to 12 months (AF5) Score 1 on anti-coag or anti-platelet. 15 to 12 months (AF6) Score >1 on anti-coag or antiplatelet. No change from AF7 Glasgow LMC Secondary Prevention of CHD CHD001 4 Register. No change from CHD1 CHD002(S) 17 BP <150/90. 15 to 12 months and threshold 40-75% to 50-85% (CHD6) CHD003(S) 17 Chol <5. 15 to 12 months and threshold 40-75% to 50-85% (CHD8) CHD004(S) 7 Flu. No change from CHD12 CHD005(S) 7 Aspirin, anti-platelet, anti-coag.15 to 12 months (CHD9) CHD006(S) 10 MI- ACE, aspirin, BB, statin. No change from CHD14 Glasgow LMC Heart Failure HF001 4 HF002 6 HF003 HF004 Register. No change from HF1 Echo. Specifies 3mth prior to 12 mth after entering register (HF2) 10 LVSD- ACE or ARB. 45-80% to 5085% (HF3) 9 LVSD- BB. 40-65% to 50-75% Glasgow LMC Hypertension HYP001 6 Register. No change from BP1 HYP002 55 150/90 or less (9 months). No change from BP5 BP4 gone- record of BP last 9 months. 8 points Glasgow LMC Peripheral Arterial Disease PAD001 2 Register. No change from PAD1 PAD002 2 BP <150/90. 15 to 12 months (PAD3) PAD003 3 Chol <5. 15 to 12 months (PAD4) PAD004 2 Aspirin or alternative. 15 to 12 months (PAD2) Glasgow LMC Stroke and TIA STIA001 2 Register. No change from Stroke1 STIA002(S) 2 STIA003(S) 5 Record of referral 3 months before to 1 month after entering latest recording. 45-80% to 50-90% (Stroke13) BP<150/90. 15 to 12 months (Stroke6) STIA004 2 Chol reading. 15 to 12 months (Stroke7) STIA005 5 Chol <5. 15 to 12 months (Stroke8) STIA006(S) 2 Flu. 45-85% to 50-90% (Stroke10) STIA007(S) 4 Anti-platelet. No change from Stroke12 Glasgow LMC Diabetes Mellitus DM001 6 Register. No change from DM32 DM002(S) 8 BP <150/90. 15 to 12 months (DM30) DM003(S) 10 BP <140/80. 15 to 12 months (DM31) DM004 6 Chol <5. 15 to 12 months (DM17) DM005 3 DM006(S) 3 Change from microalbuminuria test to albumin:creatinine ratio test. 15 to 12 months (DM13) Nephropathy or micro-alb- ACE. 4585% to 50-90% (DM15) Glasgow LMC Diabetes Mellitus DM007(S) 17 HBA1c < 59. 15 to 12 months (DM26) DM008(S) 8 DM009(S) 10 HBA1c <75. 15 to 12 months (DM28) DM10(S) 3 Flu. 45-85% to 50-90% (DM18) DM11 5 DM12 4 Retinal Screening. 15 to 12 months (DM21) Foot exam & risk classification. 15 to 12 months (DM29) HBA1c <64. 15 to 12 months (DM27) Glasgow LMC Diabetes Mellitus DM13 3 NEW- Annual Dietician review (all) DM14 DM15 11 NEW- Referral to Structured Learning Programme (new 4 NEW- Erectile Dysfunction Screening DM16 6 NEW- ED Advice and Treatment Glasgow LMC Hypothyroidism THY001 1 Register. No change from Thyroid1 THY002 6 TFTs. 15 to 12 months (Thyroid2) Glasgow LMC Asthma AST001 4 AST002 15 Variability or reversibility testing of 3 months before or anytime after diagnosis (Asthma8) 20 Asthma Review in past 12 months. No change from Asthma9 6 Smoking status 14-20 years. 15 to 12 months (Asthma10) AST003 AST004 Register. No change from Asthma1 Glasgow LMC COPD COPD001 3 Register. No change from COPD14 COPD002 5 Spirometry between 3 mths before and 12 mths after entering register (COPD15) COPD003 9 Annual Review 15 to 12 months (COPD13) COPD004(S) 7 FEV1. 15 to 12 months. 40-75% to 50-85% (COPD10) COPD005 5 NEW- Grade 3 and above O2 Sats in past 12 months COPD006(S) 5 Flu. 45-85% to 50-90% (COPD8) Glasgow LMC Dementia DEM001 5 DEM002 15 Face to face review. 15 to 12 months (DEM2) 6 New diagnosis blood tests. No change from DEM4 DEM003 Register. No change from DEM1 Glasgow LMC Depression DEP001 DEP002 21 NEW- Bio-Psychosocial Assessment at Diagnosis 10 NEW- Review of patient between 10 days and 35 days after diagnosis Glasgow LMC Mental Health MH001 4 MH002 6 MH003 4 MH004 5 MH005 5 Register. Includes other patients on Li therapy (MH8) Care Plan. 15 to 12 months. 30-55% to 40-90% BP reading. 15 to 12 months (MH13) Chol:HDL ratio. 15 to 12 months (MH19) Blood Glu or HBA1c. 15 to 12 months (MH20) Glasgow LMC Mental Health MH006 4 BMI reading.15 to 12 months (MH12) MH007 4 Alcohol. 15 to 12 months (MH11) MH008(S) 5 MH009 1 MH010 2 Cervical Screening. No change from MH16 Lithium- creatinine and TFT in past 9 months. No change from MH17 Lithium therapeutic range 4 months. No change from MH18 Glasgow LMC Cancer CAN001 5 Register. No change from Cancer1 CAN002 5 Change of time period of cancer diagnosis within preceding 15 months from 18 months. Patient review recorded within 3 months instead of 6 months. (Cancer3) Glasgow LMC Chronic Kidney Disease CKD001 6 Register. No change from CKD1 CKD002(S) 11 BP <140/85. 15 to 12 months (CKD3) CKD003 9 CKD004 6 Proteinuria on ACE or ARB. No change from CKD5 Urine Alb:creat ratio. 15 to 12 months (CKD6) CKD2 (4 points) gone. Record of BP Glasgow LMC Epilepsy EP001 1 EP002 6 EP003 3 Register (over 18). No change from Epilepsy1 Seizure Free. 15 to 12 months (Epilepsy8) Contraceptive, conception & pregnancy advice. 15 to 12 months (Epilepsy9) Glasgow LMC Learning Disability LD001 4 Register. No change from LD1 LD002 2 Down’s & TSH level. 15 to 12 months (LD2) Glasgow LMC Osteoporosis OST001 3 Register. No change from OST1 OST002 3 OST003 3 50-75yrs, fragility # confirmed on DXA treated with bone sparing agent. No change from OS2 75 and over, fragility fracture treated with bone sparing agent. No change from OST3 Glasgow LMC NEW- Rheumatoid Arthritis RA001 1 RA002 5 RA003 7 RA004 5 Maintains Register Of Patients 16 years and over with RA Face to Face Review in the past 12 months Aged 30 to 85 having a CVD Risk Assessment with tool adjusted for RA (ASSIGN +DM) in preceding 12 months Aged 50 TO 91 having a Fracture Risk Assessment with tool adjusted for RA (FRAX) in preceding 24 months Glasgow LMC Palliative Care PC001 3 Register. No change from PC3 PC002 3 3 monthly MDT case review meetings. No change from PC2 Glasgow LMC CVD Primary Prevention CVD-PP001 CVDPP002(S) CVDPP003(S) 10 Similar to PP1 but payment is for putting new HT patients who have had CVD risk assessment on Statins if risk is over 20%, Points increase to 10 from 8. Threshold increased from 40-75% to 40-90% 5 Lifestyle Advice for HT patients diagnosed after 1 April 2009. 15 to 12 months (PP2) 5 NEW- PATIENTS GIVEN LIFESTYLE ADVICE IN CVD-PP002 HAVE SCOTPASQ DONE Glasgow LMC Glasgow LMC Obesity OB001 8 Register 16 years and over with BMI >30. 15 to 12 months (PC3) Glasgow LMC Smoking SMOK001 SMOK002 SMOK003 SMOK004 11 Change from 27 to 24 months for recording smoking status (Smoking7) 25 Chronic disease & Smoking status recorded.15 to 12 months (Smoking5) 2 NEW- PRACTICE HAS STOPPING SMOKING LITERATURE AND OFFERS APPROPRIATE THERAPY (same as Information 5 indicator) 12 Change from 27 to 24 months for smokers to have an offer of support and treatment (Smoking8) Glasgow LMC Cervical Screening CS001(S) CS002(S) CS003 CS004 7 Practice Protocol. No change from CS7 11 20-60yrs smear in past 5 years. 4580%. No change from CS1 2 System for informing results. No change from CS5 2 Auditing policy & 2 yearly inadequate smear audit. No change from CS6 Glasgow LMC Child Health Surveillance CHS001(S) 6 Offer child devlopment checks. No change from CHS1 Glasgow LMC Maternity Services MAT001(S) 6 Antenatal care and screening offered. No change from MAT1 Glasgow LMC Contraception CON001 4 CON002 3 CON003 3 Register. Specifies age group as aged 54 or under (SH1) LARC advice. 15 to 12 months (SH2) Emergency contraception & LARC advice. No change from SH3 Glasgow LMC Patient Experience PE001(S) 33 Length of consultation 10mins. Same as PE1 Glasgow LMC NEW Quality Improvement QI001(S) 6 QI002(S) 5 NEW- 2 CASE NOTE REVIEWS USING A VALIDATED TOOL, MEETS TO DISCUSS AND SHARE REPORT WITH BOARD NEW- SAFETY CLIMATE SURVEY, MEETS TO DISCUSS AND SHARE REPORT WITH BOARD Glasgow LMC Medicines Management MM001(S) MM002(S) MM003(S) 4 Similar to Medicines6- meet prescribing advisor and agree 3 actions. Previously it was “up to 3 actions”. 9 Similar to Medicines10 (4 points) Meet with prescribing advisor and agree 3 actions and provide evidence of change. Now includes doing an audit. 10 Similar with Medicines11 (7 points) Med review recorded for patients on 4 or more meds. 15 to 12 months. Glasgow LMC Public Health BP001 15 Similar to Records11 (10 points) BP recorded in preceding 5 years. Age group now 40 and over (previously 45 and over) Threshold now 40-80% (previously target was 65%) Glasgow LMC What has Happened to the Organisational Domain? Glasgow LMC Organisational Domain • • • • • • 77 transferred to Core Funding 37 moved to Clinical QOF indicators 15 moved to Public Health domain 2 moved to Smoking 23 moved to Medicines Management 0.5 moved to QOF QP Glasgow LMC New Records Standard The practice has an effective system for maintaining safe clinical records for patients, including communication with OOH services and a minimum clinical summary level of 80%. Proposed subsections/Global sum %: • information sharing with OOH (0.125%), • drug indication and allergies (0.375%), • clinical summaries (0.5%). Glasgow LMC New Education Standard The practice has an effective system for Continuous Professional Development for nurses, annual appraisal for nurses and non-clinical staff and completes a minimum of 3 SEAs annually. Proposed subsections/Global sum %: • Life support training (0.25%), • Complaints and SEA (0.25%), • CPD for nurses, appraisal for nurses and practice staff (0.25%). Glasgow LMC New Management Standard The practice has an effective system for handling repeat medicine requests within 48 hours (2 working days) and staff employment policies. Proposed subsections/Global sum %: • Written procedures and employment policies accessible by staff (0.25%), • Repeat prescription availability timescales of 48 hours (0.25%). Glasgow LMC Questions? Glasgow LMC