Health

Paul Burstow Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Keith Vaz]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of diabetes patients in Leicester City Primary Care Trust did not have a foot check in 2011.

[Official Report, 13 March 2012, Vol. 542, c. 185W.]

Letter of correction from Paul Burstow:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on 13 March 2012. The exception rate in Leicester City was reported as 5.5% for DM09 and 5.5% for DM10. The correct figures were 5.2% and 5.2%.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Paul Burstow]

There are two sources of data for assessing the extent to which foot checks are provided: the National Diabetes Audit and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) achievement data.

The National Diabetes Audit shows that, from data received by 92.3% of practices, 18.3% of diabetics registered in Leicester City Primary Care Trust (PCT) did not have a foot check.

The QOF indicators for diabetic foot care in 2009-10 were as follows:

DM09: The percentage of patients with diabetes with a record of the presence or absence of peripheral pulses in the previous 15 months; and

DM10: The percentage of patients with diabetes with a record of neuropathy testing in the previous 15 months.

According to Leicester City PCT's QOF data for 2009-10, for DM09 the average underlying achievement for practices in the PCT was 89.5% and for DM10 89%. Underlying achievement means the percentage of eligible patients (excluding those who were excepted from the indicator) who received the checks. This indicates that for DM09, 10.5% and for DM10, 10.6% of patients (excluding those who were exception reported) did not receive the checks. The exception rate in Leicester City was reported as 5.5% for DM09 and 5.5% for DM10.

The differences in results between the audit and QOF may be ascribable to variations in scope and data assessment methodology. We are working with stakeholders to understand the reasons for the differences and to identify what needs to be done as a result.

The correct answer should have been:

[Paul Burstow]

There are two sources of data for assessing the extent to which foot checks are provided: the National Diabetes Audit and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) achievement data.

The National Diabetes Audit shows that, from data received by 92.3% of practices, 18.3% of diabetics registered in Leicester City Primary Care Trust (PCT) did not have a foot check.

The QOF indicators for diabetic foot care in 2009-10 were as follows:

DM09: The percentage of patients with diabetes with a record of the presence or absence of peripheral pulses in the previous 15 months; and

DM10: The percentage of patients with diabetes with a record of neuropathy testing in the previous 15 months.

According to Leicester City PCT's QOF data for 2009-10, for DM09 the average underlying achievement for practices in the PCT was 89.5% and for DM10 89%. Underlying achievement means the percentage of eligible patients (excluding those who were excepted from the indicator) who received the checks. This indicates that for DM09, 10.5% and for DM10, 10.6% of patients (excluding those who were exception reported) did not receive the checks. The exception rate in Leicester City was reported as 5.2% for DM09 and 5.2% for DM10.

The differences in results between the audit and QOF may be ascribable to variations in scope and data assessment methodology. We are working with stakeholders to understand the reasons for the differences and to identify what needs to be done as a result.