National quality board publishes interim report on information on the quality of services
(nb full report due in May) - finds big gaps.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_115188.pdf
The NHS is covered in information, yet its spread is extremely variable. Whichever way you choose to look at the availability of quality information, large gaps emerge. For example:
a. By clinical area. 40% of health programme budgeting areas, representing £20bn of annual expenditure5, are without any nationally collected information regarding effectiveness or outcomes. This includes gastro-intestinal problems (2008/09 spend: £4.1bn), and musculo-skeletal problems (£4.2bn). To put this in context, just these two areas represents more than the Government spends on policing and prisons combined6.
b. By care setting. There is currently no national data to support quality in community services (annual spend: £10bn). Outside the Quality and Outcomes Framework, primary care has almost no national quality information, and significant obstacles stand in the way of improving this.
c. By priority areas. Even some areas deemed a priority have a lack of information. For example, in drafting the quality standard for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, NICE identified no relevant national quality indicators across any aspect of the patient pathway.
In addition, almost all data collected could be made more freely available, through publishing more data or ensuring data is published in more accessible formats.