1 / 16

What is the Primary Care Benchmarking Project?

What is the Primary Care Benchmarking Project?. The new Primary Care Benchmarking Project is a tool that reports volumes of key marker tests, calculating testing rates per relevant patient group (where applicable) and analysing the impact of service usage on secondary care outcomes.

kalkin
Download Presentation

What is the Primary Care Benchmarking Project?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What is the Primary Care Benchmarking Project? • The new Primary Care Benchmarking Project is a tool that reports volumes of key marker tests, calculating testing rates per relevant patient group (where applicable) and analysing the impact of service usage on secondary care outcomes. • Test data collected for 27 key marker tests done for Primary Care • Data reported by Provider, by GP Practice, and by CCG • Data mapped to GP patient populations in a range of disease/condition specific registered populations • Demographic factors such as deprivation index and age profiles • Number of admissions, number of bed days and cost of admissions mapped from HES data to provide outcomes measures • Relevant guidance (eg NICE) included as targets/benchmarks, in addition to the ability to include any locally agreed targets/benchmarks

  2. What is it for? • Enables labs to work with their customers and CSUs to: • Monitor service usage, eg volume of requests • Analyse the impact of appropriate requesting on patient outcomes • Inform demand management (optimisation!) strategy planning • Provide evidence around best practice • Monitor progress over time, assess the impact of any interventions • Key points/objectives are as follows: • Joint working, creating a partnership between provider and customer • Have a positive impact on demand management strategies • Provide new data for research • Make pathology the centre of the patient care pathway, and turn it into the hub of patient care and improvement

  3. Story so far • Began as a joint initiative between Keele and Leeds (YCHI) in 2007 • Originally intended for NHS IC (now HSCIC) to host, but business case fell through • Barnes Quality review work in 2013 identified that this project would still be a valuable tool, particularly once the review was launched (which happened January 2014). • KUBS funded pilot in 2013 took data from two sites – UHNS and Wolverhampton – to prove concept • Now looking to roll out the pilot to interested labs in an ‘offline’ setting, with a view to assessing the viability of an online (and more automated) system further down the line

  4. First of the ‘headline’ examples • Early analyses of the data are already showing some interesting findings: • GP practices who request HbA1c tests within the recommended re-test interval according to NICE guidelines (1-2 tests per year) have 15.3 less diabetes-related emergency admissions per 1,000 patients than practices who request outside of the guidance. • They also have 88.6 less bed days (for diabetes-related emergency admissions) per 1,000 patients • Their cost of emergency admissions for diabetes is £37 per patient lower than those who request outside of the guideline. • There is a genuine incentive for HbA1c tests to be requested on time • In some cases, additional work can lead to savings in secondary care

  5. Variability and Trends

  6. Variability and Trends

  7. Analysis With Population Data

  8. Analysis With Population Data

  9. Variability

  10. Variability

  11. What will the outputs be? • Proposed short summary report, one-page RAG coded dashboard, varies by target audience • One for each GP practice • One at CCG level • One at lab level • Analysis tools provided so that further ‘drilling down’ into the data can be done in order to answer specific queries • Full training provided, of course! • Quarterly (or monthly if there is a genuine need) updates of workload data to get up-to-date trend monitoring information • GP workshops/interactive sessions to ensure data are having a positive impact

  12. How to report back to GPs?

  13. How to report back to GPs?

  14. How to report back to GPs? • Needs to be short and to the point • No time to analyse more data or read in-depth reports • Relevant comparisons need to be made • Within ‘peer group’ • Within CCG • Within wider/national context? • Workshops/interactive sessions need to involve representatives from the laboratory and CCG/CSU • Who sends the data to GPs? • Keele to send direct? • Labs provided with the tools to engage with their own GPs/CSUs?

  15. Will it make a difference? • The next 12 months will tell us! • Pilot continuing with North Staffs and Wolverhampton • Data to be presented to CSUs and GPs • Monitor improvements/changes over the course of the pilot • Recommendation has been made within Lancashire CSU for their laboratories to join the pilot • Extending the pilot out to other interested labs • GP workshops at UHNS seemed to make a difference regarding requesting practice as part of the INTERCEPT study, suggesting that engagement between laboratory and customer (using data and evidence) makes a difference

  16. Feedback • Any feedback, suggestions and questions would be most welcome! • Contact me for further information on d.holland@keele.ac.uk or 01782 733277.

More Related