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)