Margaret McCartney: The Care Quality Commission is not fit for purpose
BMJ 2014; 349 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7460 (Published 12 December 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g7460
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The choice of indicators could have avoided some of the problems that arose, the press reaction maybe managed better. No good deed goes unpunished, the path to hell is probably paved with good intentions, and water flows under the bridge.
For my practice, we are marked down on percentage Quinolone to non-Quinolone antibiotics even though we prescribe fewer Quinolones than surrounding practices that are marked as 'OK'.
This is caused by us prescribing even fewer non-Quinolones than the surrounding practices, resulting in a higher numerator/denominator ratio.
Another problem in the choice of CQC indicators is that of the small disease registers as McCartney indicates, invalidating results at practice level. (1) For instance if a practice has four patients with a condition and the target is 80%, the effective target for this small practice is 100%, as 3/4 is only 75% and 4/4 is 100%.
However it is laudable CQC published their tool so that it can be improved, rather than using it surreptitiously. There are always going to be teething problems due to the law of unintended consequences.
It is only in hindsight that the tool can be evaluated, whether it really identifies poor performing practices, but they have to start somewhere.
(1) Margaret McCartney: The Care Quality Commission is not fit for purpose.
BMJ 2014;349:g7460
Competing interests: No competing interests
Thanks you for weekly article of sanity and common sense. I am not sure why our college does not seem to support working GP.s I realise you have a day job and family but please consider standing as our leader in the RCGP and on the GMC
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Margaret McCartney: The Care Quality Commission is not fit for purpose
Another excellent article, Margaret. Exposing yet more nonsense imposed on frontline clinicians from on high. Keep up the good work!
Competing interests: No competing interests