Dataset Information

Mapping choice in the NHS: cross sectional study of routinely collected data.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To identify where in England there are likely to be most constraints on choice of hospital for patients waiting longer than six months for elective care. DESIGN: Cross sectional study using routinely collected data. SETTING: Population of England and NHS trusts and private sector hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: All residents in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Availability of beds (available and unoccupied hospital beds), demand (number of people waiting longer than six months), and access (travel time to facilities) to hospital care in England. RESULTS: Most people in England already have an extensive potential choice of hospital. The number of available and unoccupied beds within 60 minutes' travel time was lowest in the Scottish borders, North Yorkshire, and parts of East Anglia, Lincolnshire, Devon, and Cornwall. This pattern was not altered by adding in private facilities. Putting demand with this supply, the number of people in a geographical area waiting longer than six months per bed within 60 minutes' travel time was highest in the south east (except London), parts of the south west (Cornwall, Bristol), East Anglia, and the Welsh border. CONCLUSION: People in the south east (outside London), East Anglia, and parts of the south west are likely to have to travel further to exercise meaningful choice of hospital for elective care.

SUBMITTER: Damiani M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC548177 | biostudies-other | 2005 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from exceptional performers. Although a framework exists to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations, there is limited guidance to support its implementation. The approach has also rarely explored exceptional performance on broad outcomes, been implemented at ward level, or applied within the UK. This study develops and critically appraises a pragmatic method for identifying positively deviant wards using a routinely collected, broad measure of patient safety. DESIGN:A two-phased observational study was conducted. During phase 1, cross-sectional and temporal analyses of Safety Thermometer data were conducted to identify a discrete group of positively deviant wards that consistently demonstrated exceptional levels of safety. A group of matched comparison wards with above average performances were also identified. During phase 2, multidisciplinary staff and patients on the positively deviant and comparison wards completed surveys to explore whether their perceptions of safety supported the identification of positively deviant wards. SETTING:34 elderly medical wards within a northern region of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS:Multidisciplinary staff (n=161) and patients (n=188) clustered within nine positively deviant and comparison wards. RESULTS:Phase 1: A combination of analyses identified five positively deviant wards that performed best in the region, outperformed their organisation and performed consistently well over 12 months. Five above average matched comparator wards were also identified. Phase 2: Staff and patient perceptions of safety generally supported the identification of positively deviant wards using Safety Thermometer data, although patient perceptions of safety were less concordant with the routinely collected data. CONCLUSIONS:This study tentatively supports a pragmatic method of using routinely collected data to identify positively deviant elderly medical wards; however, it also highlights the various challenges that are faced when conducting the first stage of the positive deviance approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (reference-18050).

Project description:BackgroundIndependent inquiries have identified that appropriate staffing in maternity units is key to enabling quality care and minimising harm, but optimal staffing levels can be difficult to achieve when there is a shortage of midwives. The services provided and how they are staffed (total staffing, skill-mix and deployment) have been changing, and the effects of workforce changes on care quality and outcomes have not been assessed. This study aims to explore the association between daily midwifery staffing levels and the rate of reported harmful incidents affecting mothers and babies.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of daily reports of clinical incidents in maternity inpatient areas matched with inpatient staffing levels for three maternity services in England, using data from April 2015 to February 2020. Incidents resulting in harm to mothers or babies was the primary outcome measure. Staffing levels were calculated from daily staffing rosters, quantified in Hours Per Patient Day (HPPD) for midwives and maternity assistants. Understaffing was defined as staffing below the mean for the service. A negative binomial hierarchical model was used to assess the relationship between exposure to low staffing and reported incidents involving harm.ResultsThe sample covered 106,904 maternal admissions over 46 months. The rate of harmful incidents in each of the three services ranged from 2.1 to 3.0 per 100 admissions across the study period. Understaffing by registered midwives was associated with an 11% increase in harmful incidents (adjusted IRR 1.110, 95% CI 1.002,1.229). Understaffing by maternity assistants was not associated with an increase in harmful incidents (adjusted IRR 0.919, 95% 0.813,1.039). Analysis of specific types of incidents showed no statistically significant associations, but most of the point estimates were in the direction of increased incidents when services were understaffed.ConclusionWhen there is understaffing by registered midwives, more harmful incidents are reported but understaffing by maternity assistants is not associated with higher risk of harms. Adequate registered midwife staffing levels are crucial for maintaining safety. Changes in the profile of maternity service workforces need to be carefully scrutinised to prevent mothers and babies being put at risk of avoidable harm.

Project description:BackgroundChina's National Essential Public Health Service Package (NEPHSP) aims to promote health for all at the primary health care level and includes a focus on hypertension and type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, there are limited contemporary data to quantify the care cascades of hypertension and T2DM in primary health care.MethodsThis cross-sectional study involved individual level linkage of routinely collected data from the NEPHSP, health insurance claims and hospital electronic health records, from four diverse regions in China, including Xiling District (central China), Wenchuan County (western), Acheng District and Jiao District (northern). We first compared numbers of people aged ≥35 with a recorded diagnosis of hypertension and T2DM against expected numbers derived from epidemiological data. We then constructed care cascades to assess the percentages (1) enrolled in the NEPHSP, (2) adherent to the follow-up care of NEPHSP, (3) receiving medication treatment, and (4) having hypertension and/or T2DM controlled.FindingsIn the four regions, the total numbers of people aged ≥35 diagnosed of hypertension and T2DM from any data source were 149,176 and 50,828, respectively. This was estimated to be 46.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.8%-46.2%) and 45.6% (95% CI: 45.3%-45.9%) of the expected totals for hypertension and T2DM, respectively. Among those diagnosed, 65.4% (95% CI: 65.1%-65.6%) with hypertension and 66.1% (95% CI: 65.7%-66.5%) with T2DM were enrolled in the NEPHSP, respectively, in which 54.8% (95% CI: 54.5%-55.2%) with hypertension and 64.7% (95% CI: 64.1%-65.2%) with T2DM were adherent to the required services. Among those enrolled, the overall treatment rates were 70.8% (95% CI: 70.6%-71.1%) for hypertension and 82.2% (95% CI: 81.8%-82.6%) for T2DM. Among those treated, a further 80.9% (95% CI: 80.6%-81.2%) with hypertension and 73.9% (95% CI: 73.3%-74.4%) with T2DM achieved control. These results varied considerably across regions, with the northern sites showing relatively higher enrolment rates while the central site had higher control rates.InterpretationDetection and control rates for hypertension and T2DM are suboptimal in these four regions of China. Further strategies are needed to improve people's enrolment in and adherence to the NEPHSP and strengthen care delivery processes. Of note, our estimations of the diagnosis rates for each region are based on national level large epidemiological data. The interpretation of these data needs caution due to potential bias caused by regional variations.FundingThis study is funded by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases funding (APP1169757), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (72074065).

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about Canadians' knowledge of and level of support for using administrative and other large, routinely collected data for health research, despite the benefits of this type of research to patients, health care systems and society. We sought to benchmark the views of Canadian adults on this topic.MethodsResearchers and patient leaders of 3 joint and skin disease organizations codeveloped a cross-sectional online survey that was conducted between January and August 2017. The patient partners were engaged as full partners. Recruitment was mainly through the organizations' websites, email and social media. The survey captured respondents' initial perceptions, then (after background information on the topic was provided) elicited their views on the benefits of health research using routinely collected data, data access/privacy concerns, ongoing perceptions and educational needs.ResultsOf the 230 people who consented, 183 (79.6%) started the survey, and 151 (65.6%) completed the survey. Of the 151, 117 (77.5%) were women, 84 (55.6%) were British Columbians, 87 (57.6%) were university graduates, and 101 (66.9%) had a chronic disease. At the beginning of the survey, 119 respondents (78.8%) felt positively about the use of routinely collected data for health research. Respondents identified the ability to study long-term treatment effects and rare events (114 [75.5%]) and large numbers of people (110 [72.8%]) as key benefits. Deidentification of personal information was the top privacy measure (135 [89.4%]), and 101 respondents (66.9%) wanted to learn more about data stewards' granting access to data. On survey completion, more respondents (141 [93.4%]) felt positively about the use of routinely collected data, but only 87 (57.6%) were confident about data security and privacy.InterpretationRespondents generally supported the use of deidentified routinely collected data for health research. Although further investigation is needed with more representative samples, our findings suggest that additional education, especially about access and privacy controls, may enhance public support for research endeavours using these data.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, studies that used routinely collected data (RCD), such as electronic medical records and administrative claims, for exploring drug treatment effects, including effectiveness and safety, have been increasingly published. Abstracts of such studies represent a highly attended source for busy clinicians or policy-makers, and are important for indexing by literature database. If less clearly presented, they may mislead decisions or indexing. We thus conducted a cross-sectional survey to systematically examine how the abstracts of such studies were reported.MethodsWe searched PubMed to identify all observational studies published in 2018 that used RCD for assessing drug treatment effects. Teams of methods-trained collected data from eligible studies using pilot-tested, standardized forms that were developed and expanded from "The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology" (RECORD-PE) statement. We used descriptive analyses to examine how authors reported data source, study design, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.ResultsA total of 222 studies were included, of which 118 (53.2%) reported type of database used, 17 (7.7%) clearly reported database linkage, and 140 (63.1%) reported coverage of data source. Only 44 (19.8%) studies stated a predefined hypothesis, 127 (57.2%) reported study design, 140 (63.1%) reported statistical models used, 142 (77.6%) reported adjusted estimates, 33 (14.9%) mentioned sensitivity analyses, and 39 (17.6%) made a strong claim about treatment effect. Studies published in top 5 general medicine journals were more likely to report the name of data source (94.7% vs. 67.0%) and study design (100% vs. 53.2%) than those in other journals.ConclusionsThe under-reporting of key methodological features in abstracts of RCD studies was common, which would substantially compromise the indexing of this type of literature and prevent the effective use of study findings. Substantial efforts to improve the reporting of abstracts in these studies are highly warranted.

Project description:BackgroundA promising approach to reduce the increasing costs of clinical trials is the use of routinely collected health data as participant data. However, the quality of this data could limit its usability as trial participant data.MethodsThe BOSS trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing regular endoscopies versus endoscopies at need in patients with Barrett's oesophagus with primary endpoint death. Data on death and cancer collected every 2 years after randomisation (trial-specific data) were compared to data received annually (all patients on one date) from the routinely collected health data source National Health Service (NHS) Digital. We investigated completeness, agreement and timeliness and looked at the implications for the primary trial outcome. Completeness and agreement were assessed by evaluating the number of reported and missing cases and any disparities between reported dates. Timeliness was considered by graphing the year a death was first reported in the trial-specific data against that for NHS Digital data. Implications on the primary trial outcome, overall survival, of using one of the data sources alone were investigated using Kaplan-Meier graphs. To assess the utility of cause of death and cancer diagnoses, oesophageal cancer cases were compared.ResultsNHS Digital datasets included more deaths and often reported them sooner than the trial-specific data. The number reported as being from oesophageal cancer was similar in both datasets. Due to time lag in reporting and missing cases, the event rate appeared higher using the NHS Digital data.ConclusionNHS Digital death data is useful for calculating overall survival where trial-specific follow-up is only every 2 years from randomisation and the follow-up requires patient response. The cancer data was not a large enough sample to assess usability. We suggest that this assessment of registry data is done for more phase III RCTs and for more registry data to get a more complete picture of when RCHD would be useful in phase III RCT.Trial registrationISRCTN54190466 (BOSS) 1 Oct 2009.

Project description:BackgroundThere is substantial evidence that systemic anticancer therapies and radiotherapy can increase the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Optimal management decisions for cancer patients therefore need to take into account the likely risks from a proposed treatment option, as well as its likely benefits. For CVD, the magnitude of the risk depends on the incidence of the disease in the general population to which the patient belongs, including variation with age and sex, as well as on the treatment option under consideration. The aim of this paper is to provide estimates of CVD incidence rates in the general population of England for use in cardio-oncology and in other relevant clinical, research and health policy contexts.MethodsWe studied a population-based representative cohort, consisting of 2,633,472 individuals, derived by electronic linkage of records from primary care with those of admitted-patient care in England during April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2015. From 38 individual CVDs available via the linked dataset we identified five relevant categories of CVD whose risk may be increased by cancer treatments: four of heart disease and one of stroke.ResultsWe calculated incidence rates by age-group and sex for all relevant CVD categories combined, for the four relevant categories of heart disease combined, and for the five relevant CVD categories separately. We present separate incidence rates for all 38 individual CVDs available via the linked dataset. We also illustrate how our data can be used to estimate absolute CVD risks in a range of people with Hodgkin lymphoma treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy.ConclusionsOur results provide population-based CVD incidence rates for a variety of uses, including the estimation of absolute risks of CVD from cancer treatments, thus helping patients and clinicians to make appropriate individualized cancer treatment decisions. Graphical Abstract: Cardiovascular incidence rates for use in cardio-oncology and elsewhere: A presentation of age- and sex-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence rates for use in calculation of absolute cardiovascular risks of cancer treatments, and in other clinical, research and health policy contexts. Abbreviations - CVD: cardiovascular disease; y: years.

Dataset Information

Mapping choice in the NHS: cross sectional study of routinely collected data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets