No magic and no black box. We don't take a copy of your data, and nothing leaves your clinical system. We find the places where your own record contradicts itself — and every one is either a patient missing the care they should have, income you've earned but never claimed, or both.
Start with what the Radar is not. It doesn't look at a single patient record. It's a structured map of every income stream a practice in your area can legitimately claim — national contract, PCN, your ICB's local and enhanced services, and the council's public-health contracts — with the rules and deadlines attached. It tells us where money is claimable. Finding the actual under-claimed activity is a separate job, done inside your system.
The searches run in your own clinical system — EMIS or SystmOne — on your premises (or under your supervision on a secure screen-share), using Ardens — the same searches thousands of practices already use. They're built directly on the published QOF Business Rules and the official SNOMED CT code clusters, so they ask exactly the questions the contract asks. We're not inventing a definition of "diabetic" — we're using the NHS's own.
The whole method rests on one idea. A clinically coherent record is internally consistent. Where it isn't, something has usually been missed at the point of coding. We surface three kinds of contradiction:
A patient on metformin with no diabetes code; on a DMARD with no inflammatory-arthritis code. The treatment is real and recorded — the diagnosis code that should sit beside it is missing.
Repeated HbA1c results in the diabetic range with no register code; an eGFR consistent with CKD never coded; BPs in the hypertensive range with no hypertension code.
Vaccinations given and recorded but not extracting for payment because of a missing or wrong code; LD health checks done in clinic but never appearing in CQRS.
Alongside the contradiction searches, we compare your recorded prevalence on each major register — diabetes, CVD, hypertension, AF, COPD — against your Sub-ICB and England averages, using the public NHS Digital QOF database at qof.digital.nhs.uk. A register sitting materially below the expected level is a flag: it points us at exactly which registers to interrogate first. It doesn't prove anything alone — it tells us where the under-coding is most likely hiding.
This is the part that matters most, and the part we won't cut corners on. Every search produces nothing more than a worklist of named candidate patients: "here are the people whose record suggests a code may be missing." That list is reviewed by a clinician, patient by patient, who confirms or rejects every single one against the actual record.
Accuracy, never inflation. We code for accuracy, never to inflate a register. Padding a register with patients who don't genuinely meet the criteria isn't a clever trick — it's a clawback risk and, at worst, fraud. The point is the opposite: to make the register true. A code goes on only when a clinician agrees the evidence supports it.
When a clinician confirms a genuinely missing code, four things happen at once, all pulling the same way: the disease register becomes more accurate; your recorded prevalence rises toward the true figure; the QOF and contract income that was always earned but never captured can now be claimed; and the patient is correctly identified for recall, monitoring and the care that goes with their condition. Better care and recovered income aren't in tension — they're the same act of getting the record right. And throughout, the data never leaves your clinical system.
The audit is deliberately concrete. We talk to the people who actually run the practice and pull the reports that actually drive payment, then reconcile one against the other. Nothing depends on taking our word for it — every figure traces back to a report you can pull yourself.
The longest conversation, because this is where income and claiming live:
A short session on the strategic picture: where you lose time off-the-ball, whether you have clear sight of where the money comes from and goes, services you'd like to offer but don't, and what a good result looks like to you.
Which clinics run and which could run but don't; how long-term-condition patients are recalled and who chases non-responders; who codes the vaccinations and reviews, and whether coding ever gets missed.
The repeat-prescription process and eRD uptake; whether structured medication reviews are done and coded so they count; and whether shared-care drug monitoring (DMARDs, lithium, amiodarone) is claimed under a local service.
Call volumes and peak times; how much demand is patients chasing — results not communicated, scripts not ready, referrals not booked; what a patient can self-book versus what forces a phone call; and how documents and results get handled and coded.
Whether they're an AISMA specialist medical firm or a general accountant; whether the NHS pension and superannuation position is optimised; whether partner expense claims and capital allowances are fully made. A generalist accountant is, in itself, a flag worth acting on.
The interviews tell us how the practice thinks it runs. The reports tell us how it actually runs. All of it inside your system or from your own statements:
Every income line ends up in a single, plain table: what's currently claimed (from your statements), against what's eligible (from EMIS and Ardens), with the gap between them shown explicitly. Prevalence shortfalls, expired CQRS Local claims, uncoded vaccinations, missed enhanced services — each a defined, traceable, reviewable line. You see precisely where the number comes from, and if there's little to find, we tell you that plainly.
A clear, bounded engagement — remote-first, no patient data leaves your building, and the audit itself is free. Here's precisely who does what, and what we need from you.
We stand the engagement up on a clean, arm's-length footing so there's nothing to worry about on information governance.
A short scoping call to agree the plan and book the findings session. We send a single one-page data request — nothing to chase down in advance.
The MOT itself — four review lenses worked methodically, remote-first or in-system, so no patient data leaves the building: Income (QOF coding + the Funding Radar vs your statements), Efficiency (process-mapping + reclaimable time + the right NHS-approved tools), Workforce (activity data + ARRS utilisation), and Compliance (the free CQC searches as a posture check).
We sit with the partners and walk you through your real, bounded numbers — recoverable income, reclaimable time, the workforce picture and CQC notes — alongside a prioritised action list. If there's little to find, we say so.
We action the genuine wins with you — recovering income inside its claim windows and standing up automation, free and NHS-funded tools first.
We keep watch on the sources that move money — and the deadlines that lose it — so there's no March panic and no missed claim window.
The MOT carries no cost for early adopters — the full four-lens audit, the findings report and the partner meeting, all before any money changes hands. We work in-system so no patient data leaves the building, every clinical code is validated by your own clinician, and the engagement is contracted arm's-length through PHW Ltd. Find little, and we tell you plainly and you walk away owing nothing. Find real money, and you choose how to proceed.