Professor David Parkin King’s College London

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Measuring outcomes Emma Frew October Measuring outcomes Learning objectives By the end of the session students should be able to – Explain how different.
Advertisements

Average Earnings by Highest Qualification and Region 2006.
Breast Screening Programme, England, Statistics for : Graphs
Copyright 2014 Right Care Nigel Beasley Co-Chair East Midlands Clinical Senate Commissioning for Value Commissioning High Value Elective Surgery Online.
Outcomes that matter to patients: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for people with renal replacement UK Renal Registry 2015 Annual Audit Meeting.
Session 3: Can the Best Practice Tariff and price benchmarking lead to better care? Elaine Young Director of Operations National Joint Registry & Peter.
Evidence into Practice Nigel Beasley co-Chair East Midlands Clinical Senate.
@ 2012 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Chapter 5 Description of Behavior Through Numerical 2012 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Eng.Mosab I. Tabash Applied Statistics. Eng.Mosab I. Tabash Session 1 : Lesson 1 IntroductiontoStatisticsIntroductiontoStatistics.
The proposed Funding Formula for Public Health in Local Authorities Meic Goodyear 12 September 2012.
© Nuffield Trust 22 June 2015 Matched Control Studies: Methods and case studies Cono Ariti
NHS Manchester Alcohol IBA Pilot Scheme in Primary Care Clare McCann Public Health Manager.
A Process Control Screen for Multiple Stream Processes An Operator Friendly Approach Richard E. Clark Process & Product Analysis.
Can Mental Health Services Reduce Juvenile Justice Involvement? Non-Experimental Evidence E. Michael Foster School of Public Health, University of North.
NHS Benchmarking Data Susan Hamilton Consultant in Public Health South Gloucestershire Council.
Introduction to Disease Prevalence modelling Day 6 23 rd September 2009 James Hollinshead Paul Fryers Ben Kearns.
CHIM 5 November 2008 World Class Commissioning and Diverse Providers.
PHQ-9 Severity and Screening Tests Predictive of Remission Outcomes at Six Months Kurt B. Angstman, MS MD Associate Professor John M. Wilkinson Assistant.
THE IMPACT OF SELF-MANAGEMENT EDUCATION ON OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS WITH COPD Joy Gana-Inatimi (Supervisors: Prof MP Dey, Dr CJ Sutton, Mrs HC Stewart)
Region At Least One Account Yorkshire & Humber15 / 15 West Midlands14 / 14 East Midlands8 / 9 North East7 / 12 North West20 / 23 East of England11 /
PROMs Martin Orton – NHS Information Centre. Overview PROMs Overview IC’s central role in implementation –Matching & linking to HES & NJR –Applying the.
Variation in place of death from cancer: studies in South East England Elizabeth Davies, Peter Madden, Victoria Coupland, Karen Linklater, Henrik Møller.
Diabetes Research Network Professor Azeem Majeed Imperial College, London.
Evaluating Self Care in an English Public Hospital Jon Talbot.
Professor Nancy J. Devlin Office of Health Economics Royal Statistical Society June 18 th 2015 Measuring and ‘valuing’ patient reported health.
Breast Screening Programme
Musculoskeletal system
Breast Screening Programme, England, Statistics for : Graphs
Service-related research: Therapy outcomes audit
Measurements Statistics
How much is enough: what should we be spending on the NHS?
Professor Nancy Devlin Director of Research OHE
Patient Baseline Assessment
R36: UTILISING FRAILTY EARLY WARNING SCORE (FEWS) IN THE ACUTE HOSPITAL SETTING TO IDENTIFY FRAIL AND VULNERABLE PATIENTS Lotte Dinesen1,2,Alan J Poots1,
NICOR A NICE Commissioned Pilot of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Ablation of Cardiac Arrhythmias Withers KL 1, Patrick H 2, Cunningham.
Application of a simple analytical model of capacity requirements
Lynn Josephs, David Culliford, Matthew Johnson, Mike Thomas
David Culliford, Lynn Josephs, Matthew Johnson, Mike Thomas
How useful is a reminder system in collection of follow-up quality of life data in clinical trials? Dr Shona Fielding.
Patterns and trends in adult obesity
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
ComQuol: Service Focused Outcomes
Medicare Risk Adjustment Update
Associations between OHS/OKS and hospital readmission costs >12 months after THR. Costs are measured in 2014 pound sterling (£). Associations between OHS/OKS.
Local Tobacco Control Profiles The webinar will start at 1pm
Semiannual Report, March 2015
Impact and outcomes – making sure these are central to your case –
Connect and learn more at
Risk adjustment using administrative and clinical data: model comparison
Hip Replacements – improving the care pathway
Tariff, pathway, outcomes
Jimmy Nguyen and Paul Arnold, M.D.
Chapter 3: Central Tendency
The MSK-HQ Developing a generic Musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure Policy & Public Affairs Team, Arthritis Research UK e.
Comparison of a Vascular Study Group of New England risk prediction model with established risk prediction models of in-hospital mortality after elective.
Your Stories Shared: The Impact Toolkit
15.1 The Role of Statistics in the Research Process
Ambitions and Trajectories
APIC Chapter 123 August 26, 2016.
Xbar Chart By Farrokh Alemi Ph.D
Figure 1. The derivation of the cohort.
EPIDEMIOLOGY AS A TOOL TO EVALUATE QUALITY OF CARE
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Primary Mental Health Care Service on Outcomes for Common Mental Disorders: Modelling the Effect of Deprivation Jonathan.
Multivariate Analysis - Introduction
Measuring outcomes Emma Frew October 2012.
Ely South PCN Data pack August 2019.
Ely North PCN Data pack August 2019.
Cambridge City PCN Data pack July 2019.
Peterborough 1 PCN Data pack August 2019.
Public Health Implications
Presentation transcript:

Professor David Parkin King’s College London Using Patient Reported Outcome Measures to monitor health care performance Professor David Parkin King’s College London

The NHS PROMS initiative In April 2009, the Department of Health required routine measurement of patient-reported health outcomes for all NHS patients in England, before and after four surgical procedures: hip and knee replacements and hernia and varicose vein repairs. All NHS providers currently collect these data; around 250 000 patients are invited each year to complete questionnaires; good response rates, for example 80% for hip replacement. Those four procedures cost the NHS in England around £800 million per year. The estimated annual cost of the current PROMs programme is less than 0.5 per cent of that. Currently pilot work on a range of chronic conditions; aim to introduce across a wide range of NHS services.

The NHS PROMS initiative For all of the procedures, the EQ-5D is used. For hip and knee replacements and varicose vein repairs, a condition specific instrument is also included – Oxford Hip and Knee Scores; Aberdeen Varicose Vein Score

Health gain following hip replacement by hospital: England (2012/13)

Case-mix adjusted average health gain: Primary knee replacement, English hospitals, April 2012 – March 2013

Outcomes of elective procedures in NHS South East Coast 1.000 0.889 0.885 0.900 0.805 0.789 0.786 0.800 0.729 0.700 0.600 Hip replacement Knee replacement EQ-5D Index 0.500 0.444 Varicose veins 0.420 Groin Hernia 0.391 0.396 0.400 0.300 0.285 0.291 0.200 0.100 0.105 0.100 0.081 0.079 0.000 Pre-op Post-op Gain Case mix adjusted gain

Hip Replacement Pre-op Post-op Gain Case mix adjusted gain SOUTH EAST COAST 0.391 0.786 0.396 0.420 NORTH EAST 0.335 0.747 0.413 0.416 EAST OF ENGLAND 0.340 0.764 0.423 0.414 SOUTH CENTRAL 0.783 0.387 0.409 England 0.354 0.761 0.407 SOUTH WEST 0.380 0.772 NORTH WEST 0.427 0.405 LONDON 0.336 0.743 0.402 YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 0.332 0.752 EAST MIDLANDS 0.744 0.412 0.399 WEST MIDLANDS 0.348 0.746 0.398

Hip replacement - SEC providers in context

Hip replacement - all providers in England

Hip replacement - 95% confidence intervals

Creating a health index using profiles and weights One way of creating a health status index for a person is to use a weighted ‘health state profile’, which is purely descriptive. The profile is generated using data on the person from a questionnaire which assigns ‘levels’ to ‘dimensions’. These levels within dimensions are summed to produce a single number index Most condition specific indexes are ‘unweighted’, treating levels as ranks and summing over dimensions. Most generic indexes weight each level within each dimension, with weights taken from a separate ‘valuation’ survey

Paretian categories for EQ-5D change Four possible outcomes from an intervention: 1. The health profiles are the same: there has been no change in health state. 2. The second profile is better than the first: there has been an unequivocal improvement in health. 3. The second profile is worse than the first: there has been an unequivocal worsening in health. 4. The first and second health profiles are non-comparable: there has been a change in health but we cannot say if it is an improvement or worsening.

Paretian classification of health change using EQ-5D profile data before and after four elective procedures

Health Profile Grid: the distribution of individual changes in health Paretian categories: partial ordering Impose a full ordering, so all 243 states are ranked from best to worst. Facilitates a simple diagrammatic display of the individual changes in health: EQ-5D profile before surgery on the vertical axis EQ-5D profile after surgery on the horizontal The 45˚ line represents no change in health

Changes in health state for hip operations (PROMs pilot data)

Changes in health state for cataract operations (PROMs pilot data)

Case mix adjustment – Step 1 (EQ-5D Hip replacement example) Estimate explanatory model for post-operative health state using these categories of variables (those used in the example in parentheses) : Patient demographics (Sex) Other patient characteristics (Did not consider themselves disabled; had assistance in completing the Q2 questionnaire) Clinical risk variables derived from HES (Total hip replacement or hybrid prosthetic hip revisions; COPD and rheumatoid arthritis) Clinical risk variables from the patient questionnaires (Reported circulatory, arthritis or anxiety and depression; baseline index) Other risk factors from the patient questionnaires (General health question) Local area related variables (Index of Multiple Deprivation) Provider related variables (Post-operative length of stay; time from procedure to completion of Q2)

Case mix adjustment – Step 2 Calculate for for each Provider predicted post-operative scores. The values of Local Area and Provider related variables for individual providers are not used in this; replaced by an addition to the constant, the coefficient multiplied by the average value for the sample. This gives a comparison with a hypothetical provider that has the same case mix, rather than with other real providers. Each provider’s outcomes are therefore adjusted to compare to a standardised case mix. This mix is the average level of the case-mix variables over all providers, which by definition also generates the all-providers average PROMs score. The change in health state is therefore calculated as the adjusted post-operative score minus the average pre-operative score over all providers

X X X X Provider A actual Q2 Provider A expected Q2 Q2 Regression line Q2c Q1=Q2 line X Q2d ΔQ’ X Q2a X Q2b Provider A actual Q2 if it had the all providers average Q1 ΔQ Actual all providers average Q2 = expected all providers average Q2 Q1 Provider A average Q1a All providers average Q1

Mean 0.405 Std. dev. 0.045 Min 0.266 Max 0.544 Range 0.278 Mean 0.405 Std. dev. 0.034 Min 0.314 Max 0.488 Range 0.174

Adjusted and unadjusted EQ-5D index scores for primary hip replacement: English hospitals, 2012/2013: ordered on both adjusted and unadjusted results

Adjusted and unadjusted EQ-5D index scores for primary hip replacement: English hospitals, 2012/2013: ordered on unadjusted results only