Heart Failure Collaborative Wednesday 25 March 2015 Hospital Heart Failure Update Hugh McIntyre March 2015 Overview • Review EQR data • Aligning EQR with NHFA – Rationale • National context – Acute HF CG 187 – tariff – National audits (HN) – Introduction to Process EQR Performance Variation Benchmarking EQR to 2014 Performance Consistent improvement over 4 years EQR to 2014 Performance Consistent improvement over 4 years EQR to 2014 Performance Fall off 2014 ? Loss CQUIN But not seen in other pathways Consistent improvement over 4 years EQR to 2014 Performance Fall off 2014 ? Loss CQUIN But not seen in other pathways Failure to deliver target performance EQR to 2014 Variation Process Measure (ACS) Outcome measure EQR to 2014 Benchmarking (XXXTrust) EQR XXXT EQR to 2014 Benchmarking (XXXTrust) EQR XXXT • This data is for information and for local quality improvement • Process measures do not appear to correlate with outcomes – As currently measured in EQR (but not formally analysed) – But note specialist input, optimal meds and ward correlate with better outcome in NHFA • EQR does not measure these currently National context Acute Heart Failure CG 187 National tariff proposals National Audits 5 year plans CQC Acute Heart Failure CG 187 Organisation of care • (All hospitals) should provide a specialist HF team based on a cardiology ward, providing outreach services. • (All HF) receive early and continuing input from specialist heart failure team. Diagnosis, assessment and monitoring • single measurement of serum NP – BNP less than 100 ng/litre – NT-proBNP less than 300 ng/litre. • For raised NP perform TTE • Consider TTE < 48 hours of admission Acute Heart Failure CG 187 Treatment after stabilisation • Beta blockade – Continue BB unless heart rate less than 50 bpm, AV block, or shock. – Start/restart BB treatment during hospital admission (LVSD) once stabilised – Ensure stable “for typically 48 hours” after starting or restarting beta-blockers and before discharge ie BB established pre discharge • Follow-up – by specialist heart failure team within 2 weeks of discharge. CHF QS St12) National tariff payment system Engagement 2015/16 - Publications - GOV.UK • New BPT for emergency admissions to secondary care with a primary diagnosis of heart failure • National Heart Failure Audit data as the source for measuring best practice for heart failure care in secondary care. • Measure data completeness and specialist input • BPT price set above national prices, while a lower price would be paid if the provider did not fulfil the criteria. National Audits Everyone Counts: Planning for Patients 2014/15 to 2018/19 2 “An outcomes-based approach focusing less on what is done for patients, and more on the results of what is done” 26 “Consultant level activity and clinical outcomes data for ten surgical specialties have now been published. This gives patients and citizens, as well as their commissioners and clinicians, enhanced access to data and information. We plan to extend this so that data from all appropriate NHS funded national clinical audits is made available before 2020”. Medical Director of NHSE Medical Director of NHSE Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality Medical Director of NHSE Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality Chief Inspector of Hospitals at the CQC EQR – National HF Audit Rationale Care bundles Additional measures Aligning EQR with NHFA • Why – Clinical imperatives • Care quality and standards – National imperatives • Financial and performance • Inspection (CQC) – Empowers clinicians – Simplifies local data collection – Secures local data collection for National Audit • Best of both – monthly data and data (tariff) compliance Aligning EQR with NHFA • NHFA larger data base than EQR: – “EQR-familiar” Care bundle • Existing care bundle (Minus smoking cessation) PLUS • Specialist (tariff, CGs, QS) • 2 week review (CGs, QS) – Additional quality improvements areas (exploratory) • Alignment with QS and CGs • Heart Failure Clinical Reference Group Aligning the data Care bundle (ACS) EQR • • • • Echo ACE / ARB (On discharge) Management plan Smoking cessation Aligning the data Care bundle (ACS) EQR NHFA • • • • • • • • • Echo ACE / ARB (On discharge) Management plan Smoking cessation Specialist Input Echo ACE / ARB (On discharge) Management plan (NHFA) “Referral” to HFNS or CHFNS follow up. (LVSD only*) BB on discharge in bundle ? *Agreed by CRG Additional quality measures (not part of a care bundle but reported on monthly for information). • Main place of care • Was a review appointment with specialist Multidisciplinary HF team made and Date. * – * Recommended within 2 weeks of discharge. • Referral to HFNS or CHFNS follow up. (All cause heart failure) • BB on discharge in bundle – Should this be part of the ACS ‘bundle’? Summary • Pros – – – – Next step for EQR is NHFA alignment Optimises data collection, completion and compliance Allows more relevant redefinition of care bundle Allows exploratory Quality Indicators • Cons – – – – Change Loss of EQR “value” (keep monthly reporting) Learning (but will reduce total data collection burden) Culture • New data will need to be re-evaluated against current scores Plan for the morning • New EQ measures – Community Trusts – Richard Blakey – Break • National Heart Failure Audit – Professor Theresa McDonagh, NHFA Lead NICOR • Translating data into intelligence – Sally Crick, Programme Manager (Heart / Stroke), Public Health England, National Cardiovascular Health Intelligence Network (NCVIN) • Overview of the breakout session – Peter Carpenter, Director of Improvement, KSS AHSN Community Richard Blakey Purpose of this session • Where are now now • To introduce new community measures • The patient journey from acute to community • Linking to Quality Standards • Benchmarking and aiding commissioning Time for a Spring clean Where we are now • Diminishing numbers of trusts reporting • Reducing CQUINs • ?Diverging directions for EQ and CCGs Period: Sep 2011 – Jan 2015 Out with the old In with the new • New measures will –Amalgamate some previous measures –Make collection of data simpler –Add important elements relating to QS • Management • All patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD) should be on an ACE (or ARB) and a Beta-Blocker (licensed for Heart Failure) within the target dose range for heart failure. An average 50% dose against target doses accepted in this measure*, measuring the average dose v % reaching maximum dose is to maximise improvement outcomes. Population is: • All patients with confirmed LVSD (by echo) on Community HF Nurse Caseload. *To align with NHFA findings • ACE (record the dose prescribed monthly) • ARB (record the dose prescribed monthly) • Beta-blocker (record the dose prescribed monthly) – Exception reporting remains similar to previously • Management • Aldosterone Antagonists (MRA): To be kept • The current NICE Chronic heart failure (update) CG108 evidence reviewed suggests that spironolactone should be used in severe chronic heart failure (NYHA Class III-IV), and eplerenone should be used in the patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. The latter is in keeping with the guidance of NICE on the management of myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure. • Exceptions remain the same. • (Ivabradine now removed as a measure) • Clinical assessment within 2 weeks of referral • All patients referred to the Community Heart Failure Service should receive a clinical assessment from a member of the multidisciplinary heart failure team within 2 weeks of referral. • Population is: All patients who have been referred and accepted to the community heart failure service caseload. • Clinical assessment – Record on spreadsheet: • 1. Date referral received. • 2. Date referral accepted by CHFNS. • 3. Date of 1st clinical assessment. Clinical assessment: • All patients with chronic heart failure require monitoring. This monitoring should include: • A clinical assessment of functional capacity, • fluid status, • cardiac rhythm (minimum of examining the pulse), • cognitive status and nutritional status. • A review of medication, including need for changes and possible side effects serum urea, electrolytes, creatinine and eGFR. [NICE 2003, amended 2010] To be discussed • • • • • High level exception reporting Patient experience surveys Long term conditions data collection Benchmarking Commissioning Acute Trust: D&G Provider: Virgincare NW Team Covers NW Surrey CCG . All cause HF. Acute Trust: MFT Provider: CSH Surrey Covers: Surrey Downs CCG. LVSD<40% Acute Trust: ASPH Acute Trust: RSCH Provider: Kent Community NHS Trust Acute Trust: SASH Provider: Virgincare SW Team Covers: Guildford and Waverly CCG. All cause HF Crawley team. Covers Horsham & Mid Sussex CCG LVSD<50% Chichester team. Covers Coastal West Sussex CCG LVSD<50% Acute Trust: WSHT (St Richards) Acute Trust: MTW Provider: FCHC Covers: East Surrey CCG. LVSD<55% Provider: Sussex Community NHS T HF MAP 2015 Provider: Kent Community NHS T Acute Trust: EKHFT Provider: East Sussex Community Health Care : All cause HF West team High Weald Lewes Havens CCG Eastbourne, Hailsham & Seaford CCG. All cause HF Brighton team. Covers: Brighton & Hove CCG All cause HF Acute Trust: WSHT (Worthing) Provider: Medway Community Healthcare Acute Trust: BSUH Acute Trust: ESHT East team Hastings and Rother CCG. All cause HF Exception reporting for: Clinical Assessment within 2 weeks measure. 1. Patient declined assessment 2. Patient re-admitted to hospital with HF 3. Patient in hospital 4. Patient died 5. Consultant management plan request review > 2 weeks What’s that coming over the hill? Opportunities • Reassess the criteria for inclusion in your service? • Time to embrace prodigal trusts back into the fold – we want you back! • One patient pathway • Chance to align with NICE Quality Standards • Invite CCGs to align with their priorities • To integrate with primary care – Admission avoidance care plans Quality Measure 5 Education and self management • Quality statement • People with chronic heart failure are offered personalised information, education, support and opportunities for discussion throughout their care to help them understand their condition and be involved in its management, if they wish. • • • • • • • Quality measure Structure: Evidence of local arrangements to ensure people with chronic heart failure are offered personalised information, education, support and opportunities for discussion throughout their care to help them understand their condition and be involved in its management, if they wish. Process: a) Proportion of people with chronic heart failure receiving personalised information, education, support and opportunities to discuss their care. Numerator – the number of people in the denominator receiving personalised information, education, support and opportunities to discuss their care. Denominator – the number of people with chronic heart failure. b) Evidence from experience surveys showing that people with chronic heart failure feel they have been provided with personalised information, education, support and opportunities for discussion throughout their care to help them understand their condition and be involved in its management, if they wished. • • Quality measure Structure: Quality measure 6 MDT • a) Evidence of a local multidisciplinary heart failure team led by a specialist and consisting of professionals with the appropriate competencies from primary and secondary care. • b) Evidence of local arrangements to ensure people with chronic heart failure are given a single point of contact for the multidisciplinary heart failure team. • • • • • • • Process: a) Proportion of people with chronic heart failure who are cared for by a multidisciplinary heart failure team led by a specialist and consisting of professionals with the appropriate competencies from primary and secondary care. Numerator – the number of people in the denominator cared for by a multidisciplinary heart failure team led by a specialist and consisting of professionals with the appropriate competencies from primary and secondary care. Denominator – the number of people with chronic heart failure. b) Proportion of people with chronic heart failure given a single point of contact for the multidisciplinary heart failure team. Numerator – the number of people in the denominator given a single point of contact for the multidisciplinary heart failure team. Denominator – the number of people with chronic heart failure cared for by a multidisciplinary heart failure team. Quality measure 7 • Quality statement • People with chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction are offered angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin II receptor antagonists licensed for heart failure if there are intolerable side effects with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and betablockers licensed for heart failure, which are gradually increased up to the optimal tolerated or target dose with monitoring after each increase. • • • • • • • Structure: a) Evidence of local arrangements to ensure that people with chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are offered angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (or angiotensin II receptor antagonists [ARBs] licensed for heart failure if there are intolerable side effects with ACE inhibitors) and beta-blockers licensed for heart failure. b) Evidence of local arrangements to review people with chronic heart failure due to LVSD after each increase up to the optimal tolerated or target dose of ACE inhibitors (or ARBs) and beta-blockers. Process: a) Proportion of people with chronic heart failure due to LVSD who are prescribed ACE inhibitors (or ARBs licensed for heart failure if there are intolerable side effects with ACE inhibitors). Numerator – the number of people in the denominator prescribed ACE inhibitors (or ARBs licensed for heart failure if there are intolerable side effects with ACE inhibitors). Denominator – the number of people with chronic heart failure due to LVSD. • Quality Measure 8 – People with stable chronic heart failure and no precluding condition or device are offered a supervised group exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programme that includes education and psychological support. • Quality Measure 9 – People with stable chronic heart failure receive a clinical assessment at least every 6 months, including a review of medication and measurement of renal function. • Quality Measure 10 – People admitted to hospital because of heart failure have a personalised management plan that is shared with them, their carer(s) and their GP. • Quality Measure 12 – People admitted to hospital because of heart failure are discharged only when stable and receive a clinical assessment from a member of the multidisciplinary heart failure team within 2 weeks of discharge. • Quality Measure 13 – People with moderate to severe chronic heart failure, and their carer(s), have access to a specialist in heart failure and a palliative care service. Using data to benchmark and aid commissioning Refreshment break The National Heart Failure Audit 2013/14 Professor T A McDonagh, King’s College Hospital, London. UK The National Heart Failure Audit-8th Annual Report • Established in 2007 • Report the clinical practice and patient outcomes for acute patients discharged from hospital with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (also record I/P death) ICD10 codes • Purpose is to use the data to improve the standard of care 58 Cont’d • Participation in the audit is mandated by the Department of Health’s NHS Standard Contracts for 2012/13,11 and by the NHS Wales National Clinical Audit and Outcome Review Plan 2012/13. • Supported by BSH, managed by NICOR, commissioned by HQIP • ICD-10 codes: I11.0 Hypertensive heart disease with (congestive) heart failure, I25.5 Ischaemic cardiomyopathy,I42.0 Dilated cardiomyopathy, I42.9 Cardiomyopathy, unspecified, I50.0 Congestive heart failure, I50.1 Left ventricular failure, I50.9 Heart failure, unspecified April 2013-March 2014 Participation and Case Ascertainment •96.7% NHS Trusts in England and 100% Welsh Health Boards submitting data •Reporting on 55,040 admissions 54,654. -post data cleaning – 25% increase since last year ! •HES admission increased by 16% in the previous year •66% submitted >20 /month or 70% of HES coding Should represent the target of represent 70% of all HF •Aggregate data presented •240,710 patient episodes since the beginning Demographics 2013-14 Mean age=77.6 , median age 80.2 years Mean age men=75.7, women 80.1 Social Deprivation and HF Admission Symptoms Echo diagnoses Aetiology and Comorbidity HFREF/HF-PEF Place of Care Specialist Input Specialist Input Treatment Five Year Trends in Prescribing for LVSD Treatment and Specialist Input 72 Monitoring Discharge Planning Length of Stay Median LOS by Hospital Mortality Data from the National Heart Failure Audit 2013-2014 • In Hospital • 9.5% (same as last year) • Was 11.1% in 2011/12 • 30-day • 15% • 1 year (within the audit year) • 34% • In Patient Mortality In Patient Death 2013/14 Cox Proportional Hazards Model 5 year Trends in In Patient and 30 Day Mortality Adjusted In Patient Mortality by The target is the overall proportion of 0.095. Hospital 2013-14 The adjusted in-hospital mortality funnel plot was obtained from a logistic regression model adjusting for age, gender, treatment ward and length of stay with random effects for hospital of admission to account for clustering. All hospitals were within the upper 95% and 99.8% control limit with most hospitals clustering around the overall average value. ACM following discharge • 24.7 % at end of FU (median 180 days) ACM Post Discharge in Those with LVSD and Disease Modifying Drugs ACM for Survivors by Quality of Care Indicators Place of Care HF Nurse Cardiology Follow Up Cox Proportional Hazards Model for ACM survivors to discharge by additive drug treatment on discharge (2009-14) All-cause mortality for survivors to discharge by place of care (2009-14) and Cardiology Follow Up • • • • • • • • Acute Heart Failure Outcomes in the England and Wales Mortality fall for in patients has been maintained prescribing rates particularly Beta-Blockers and MRAs treatment in specialist wards and referral to heart failure follow-up services trend to increasing age no difference comorbidities or disease severity of patients across the last three years. Mortality rates remain high. Good clinical management by heart failure and cardiology specialists continue to result in significantly better outcomes for patients: in hospital, the month after discharge and remains several years after their hospital admission. The Future • HQIP -100% case ascertainment is not attainable or necessary • Results valid • Case submission will remain at 70% HES • Note consultation on using Audit data results for Best Practice Tariff for Heart Failure • 70% HES and 60% of cases receiving specialist input… • Piloting project tracking patients into primary Thank you 2013-14 !! Polly Mitchell Damian Marlee Julie Sanders Project Board National Cardiovascular Intelligence Network (NCVIN) Using data and information to improve the quality of care and outcomes for cardiovascular disease Sally Crick, NCVIN Network Manager www.ncvin.org.uk NCVIN Overview: the NHS CB and PHE will look to establish a cardiovascular intelligence network (NCVIN) bringing together epidemiologists, analysts, clinicians and patient representatives. The CVIN, working with the HSCIC, will bring together existing CVD data and identify how to use it best; 93 NCVIN National Partnership Board: NHS England, Domain 1 and National Clinical Directors Association NCVIN Clinical Leads Quality NHS Health Checks Registry National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes (NICOR) Patient Association British Heart Foundation Federation British Cardiovascular Society Diabetes UK UK Renal Registry Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) Stroke NHS Improving Vascular British Kidney National Kidney Heart UK NCVIN: Strategic Work streams 95 Work stream 1: To continue to develop relevant and timely tools/resources through a single portal Cardiovascular Key Facts Sourced and referenced national key facts Behavioural risk factors Fact sheet 1 Smoking ethnicity, deprivation Fact sheet 2 Obesity Fact sheet 3 Physical activity Fact sheet 4 Nutrition Fact sheet 5 Alcohol consumption Bodily risk factors Fact sheet 7 Hypertension disease Fact sheet 8 Diabetes failure Fact sheet 9 Kidney disease Fact sheet 10 Familial hypercholesterolemia dementia 98sheet 16 Peripheral arterial disease Non Behaviour risk factors Fact sheet 6 Age, sex, CVD diseases Fact sheet 11 Cardiovascular Fact sheet 12 CHD and heart Fact sheet 13 Fact sheet 14 Fact sheet 15 Atrial fibrillation Stroke and TIA Vascular Fact Cardiovascular Profiles: Overview of CVD Risk factors Heart disease Diabetes Kidney Stroke Available for all CCGs and SCNs in England. Hard copy downloadable PDF Published July 2014, refreshed March 2015 Prevalence Overview Care processes and treatment indicators and variation at practice level Treatment in secondary care Mortality trends Commissioning for Value CVD Focus Packs: Heart/Stroke Refreshed December 2014 Summary: overarching messages Public health focus on prevention Significant benefit to patients if improvement to primary care management indicators were made High costs for: CHD emergency admissions, heart failure emergency admissions, angiography procedures, angioplasty procedures High numbers of admissions for: stroke emergency admissions, CABG procedures High lengths of stay for: CVD elective admissions, stroke emergency admissions, angiography procedures, CABG procedures Summary on a page Overarching messages 6 Where does the CCG compare poorly against its cluster group? Analysis by pathway stage (page 1 of 2) Indicators in the worst quintile versus benchmark group - difference Table1 between the CCG and the benchmark, (p) – PCT based indicator No indicators in the worst quintile Opportunity - if the CCG were to equal the benchmark No indicators in the worst quintile Hypertension ratio (-5.5 % lower) 3,185 people % AF patients stroke risk assessed using CHADS2 (-2.2 % lower) 75 people 3/5 prevention indicators 3/3 observed to expected prevalence ratios Analysis Number of Indicators where CCG has room for improvement* 17/20 primary care indicators *below the average of the best 5 CCGs in the cluster group 11 Where does the CCG compare poorly against its cluster group? Analysis by pathway stage (page 2 of 2) versus benchmark group - difference worst quintile in the Indicators Table2 51/62 secondary care indicators 1/1 social care indicators between the CCG and the benchmark, (p) – PCT based indicator CHD: average cost per female emergency admission (34.1 % higher) Stroke male emergency admissions (DSR) (34.1 % higher) Heart failure: average cost per female emergency admission (13.3 % higher) CVD: average male elective LOS (41.8 % higher) CVD: average female elective LOS (134.9 % higher) Stroke: average male emergency LOS (240.3 % higher) Angiography procedures: female average cost (78.2 % higher) Angiography procedures: male LOS (119.1 % higher) Angiography procedures: female LOS (87.4 % higher) Angioplasty procedures: female average cost (12.9 % higher) CABG procedures: male (DSR) (74.6 % higher) CABG procedures: male (LOS) (104 % higher) CABG procedures: female (LOS) (111.3 % higher) New implantable cardioverter-defibrillator procedures (p) (86 % higher) Opportunity - if the CCG were to equal the benchmark £157K 47 admissions £65K 334 bed days 643 bed days 632 bed days £71K 1,331 bed days 512 bed days £19K 34 procedures 929 bed days 259 bed days 159 procedures No indicators in the worst quintile No indicators in the worst quintile *below the average of the best 5 CCGs in the cluster group Analysis Number of Indicators where CCG has room for improvement* 12 Bring it all together: what works, what could work, who should we speak to Prevention of cardiovascular disease Hypertension Atrial fibrillation Stroke Chronic heart failure Lipid modification Contact the NICE field team for support and advice on implementing NICEquality guidance The and productivity collection provides quality assured examples of improvements across NHS and social care and include cardiovascular and stroke. Analysis NICE Guidance, Quality Standards etc. Myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation Look at NICE shared learning examples from organisations that have put Lower limb peripheral arterial disease guidance into practice. Smoking prevention and cessation Examples include peripheral Obesity arterial disease, hypertension and obesity Physical activity NICE is recruiting additional members to join its Commissioning reference panel and to support the NICE commissioning programme. 15 Annex 1: spine charts KEY : England best Worst quintile in cluster Prevention Worse outcome \ High prevalence Smoking (p) 4 week quitters as a proportion of estimated smokers (p) % of patients registered with a GP with a LTC who smoke Binge drinking (p) Obesity (p) Better outcome \ Low prevalence Opportunit y 3,071 people 229 people 1,912 patients - Annexes England worst Prevalence CHD CHD observed to expected prevalence ratio Stroke Stroke observed to expected prevalence ratio Hypertension Hypertension observed to expected prevalence ratio Heart Failure Heart failure due to LVD register Atrial fibrilliation CVD prevention register * (p) = PCT based indicator 58 people 1,259 people 182 people 152 people 585 people 3,185 people 95 people 232 people 178 people 744 people For data sources used, see slide 16 Annex 1: spine charts KEY : England best Worst quintile in cluster Primary care Worse outcome % patients with CHD whose last BP reading is 150/90 or less % patients with CHD whose cholesterol is 5mmol/l or less % CHD patients record of aspirin % CHD patients treated with a beta blocker % of patients with CHD who have had influenza immunsation % of MI patients treated with an ACE inhibitor % of patients with HF confirmed by an echocardiogram % of patients with HF due to LVD, treated with ACE inhibitor % of patients with HF due to LVD, treated with ACE + beta-blocker % of patients with stroke/TIA last BP is 150/90 or less % of patients with stroke/TIA record of cholesterol % of patients with stroke/TIA cholesterol is 5mmol/l or less % of patients with stroke/TIA had influenza immunisation % of stroke patients with a record an anti-platelet agent taken % of new stroke/TIA patients referred further investigation % of patients with hypertension record of BP % of patients with hypertension BP is 150/90 or less % AF patients stroke risk assessed using CHADS2 AF & CHADS2 score of 1, % treated anti-coagulation drug therapy AF & CHADS2 score > 1, % treated anti-coagulation drug therapy * (p) = PCT based indicator Better outcome Opportunit y 53 people 14 people 2 people 291 people 0 people 12 people 30 people 44 people 90 people 81 people 10 people 31 people 412 people 778 people 75 people 8 people 86 people For data sources used, see slide Annexes England worst 17 Annex 1: spine charts KEY : Secondary care Worst quintile in cluster Worse outcome CVD: average cost per male emergerncy admission CVD: average cost per female emergerncy admission CVD male emergerncy admissions (DSR) CVD female emergerncy admissions (DSR) CVD: average male emergency LOS CVD: average female emergency LOS CVD: average cost per male elective admission CVD: average cost per female elective admission CVD male elective admissions (DSR) CVD female elective admissions (DSR) CVD: average male elective LOS CVD: average female elective LOS CHD: average cost per male emergerncy admission CHD: average cost per female emergerncy admission CHD male emergerncy admissions (DSR) CHD female emergerncy admissions (DSR) CHD: average male emergency LOS CHD: average female emergency LOS CHD: average cost per male elective admission CHD: average cost per female elective admission CHD male elective admissions (DSR) CHD female elective admissions (DSR) CHD: average male elective LOS CHD: average female elective LOS * (p) = PCT based indicator England best Better outcome Opportunit y £207K £158K 222 admissions 200 admissions 3,930 bed days 1,752 bed days 334 bed days 643 bed days £160K £157K 53 admissions 35 admissions 184 bed days 209 bed days £52K £3K 54 bed days 14 bed days For data sources used, see slide Annexes England worst 18 Outcome versus Expenditure Tools: Cardiovascular and Diabetes DOVE tool Presentation title - edit in Header and Footer Presentation title - edit in Header and Footer Outcome versus expenditure tool http://www.yhpho.org.uk/default.aspx?RID=200330 116 National Cardiovascular Intelligence Network Presentation title - edit in Header and Footer Unique analysis Co-morbidities: draft – not for circulation Prevalence of comorbidities by age Comorbidity matrix Work stream 2: To embed information/intelligence into local service improvement NCVIN Masterclasses One half day session in each SCN Programme: Introduction Delivered in Partnership with: World café NICOR Local data National Diabetes Audit Local example Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme Renal Registry Commissioning for Value 121 NHS Health Checks Master class Programme 22 April 2015 London www.phe-events.org.uk/ncvinlondon 21st May 2015, East of England 11th June 2015, South East 9th July 2015, Yorkshire and Humber www.ncvin.org.uk Work stream 3: To take a strategic lead on the creative/innovative development of information NCVIN Vision: Data Linkage “Where it is efficient and effective, data will be shared securely between national agencies and audit programmes to provide a population wide view through from prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and care to end of life” e.g.. “proof of concept” data linkage between cancer registration and the national heart audit data within NICOR to investigate how interactions between heart disease and cancer affect patients outcomes 125 www.ncvin.org.uk Thank you sally.crick@phe.gov.uk 126 Lunch in Traders Restaurant