How do we compare? Applying UK pay for performance indicators to an Australian general practice

Adrian Elliot-Smith, Mark Morgan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    5 Citations (Scopus)


    Background: United Kingdom general practitioners receive payment based on their performance in multiple clinical indicators. We set out to apply the same indicators in an Australian general practice to benchmark our performance and to see how much work was required to obtain the data. Methods: Clinical indicators for the 2008-2009 UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) cycle were examined and achievement levels measured in a large rural Australian general practice, mainly by computer searching of the clinical database. Results: Outcome measures were obtainable for 79 out of 80 indicators. Manual perusal of computer records was required for 16 indicators. Data collection takes approximately 130 hours. The Australian general practice achieved 66% of available pay for performance points compared to the UK average of 97%. Discussion: United Kingdom QOF clinical data is obtainable relatively easily in a well computerised Australian rural general practice. The exercise identified significant areas in which clinical performance could be improved.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)43-48
    Number of pages6
    JournalAustralian Family Physician
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010


    • Clinical audit
    • Health care economics
    • Health care quality assessment
    • Health policy


    Dive into the research topics of 'How do we compare? Applying UK pay for performance indicators to an Australian general practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this