CVD: Primary Care Intelligence Packs...the version number on your copy matches that of the one...

CVD: Primary Care Intelligence

Packs

June 2017

Version 1

NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG

Contents 1. Introduction 3

2. CVD prevention

• The narrative 11

• The data 13

3. Hypertension


• The data 17

4. Stroke


• The data 28

5. Diabetes


• The data 43

6. Kidney


• The data 54

7. Heart


• The data 66

8. Outcomes 82

9. Appendix 88

2

This document is valid only when viewed via the internet. If it is printed into hard copy or saved to another location, you must first check that

the version number on your copy matches that of the one online. Printed copies are uncontrolled copies.

CVD: Primary Care Intelligence Packs

3

Introduction


4

This intelligence pack has been compiled by GPs and nurses and pharmacists in

the Primary Care CVD Leadership Forum in collaboration with the National

Cardiovascular Intelligence Network

Matt Kearney Sarit Ghosh Kathryn Griffith

George Kassianos Jo Whitmore Matthew Fay

Chris Harris Jan Procter-King Yassir Javaid

Ivan Benett Ruth Chambers Ahmet Fuat

Mike Kirby Peter Green Kamlesh Khunti

Helen Williams Quincy Chuhka Sheila McCorkindale

Nigel Rowell Ali Morgan Stephen Kirk

Sally Christie Clare Hawley Paul Wright

Bruce Taylor Mike Knapton John Robson

Richard Mendelsohn Chris Arden David Fitzmaurice


Local intelligence as a tool for clinicians and commissioners

to improve outcomes for our patients

Why should we use this CVD Intelligence Pack

The high risk conditions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) - such as hypertension, atrial fibrillation, high cholesterol,

diabetes, non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and chronic kidney disease - are the low hanging fruit for prevention in the NHS

because in each case late diagnosis and suboptimal treatment is common and there is substantial variation. High

quality primary care is central to improving outcomes in CVD because primary care is where much prevention and

most diagnosis and treatment is delivered.

This cardiovascular intelligence pack is a powerful resource for stimulating local conversations about quality

improvement in primary care. Across a number of vascular conditions, looking at prevention, diagnosis, care and

outcomes, the data allows comparison between clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and between practices.

This is not about performance management because we know that variation can have more than one interpretation.

But patients have a right to expect that we will ask challenging questions about how the best practices are achieving

the best, what average or below average performers could do differently, and how they could be supported to perform

as well as the best.

How to use the CVD intelligence pack

The intelligence pack has several sections – CVD prevention, hypertension, stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF), diabetes,

kidney disease, heart disease and heart failure. Each section has one slide of narrative that makes the case and asks

some questions. This is followed by data for a number of indicators, each with benchmarked comparison between

CCGs and between practices.

Use the pack to identify where there is variation that needs exploring and to start asking challenging questions about

where and how quality could be improved. We suggest you then develop a local action plan for quality improvement –

this might include establishing communities of practice to build clinical leadership, systematic local audit to get a better

understanding of the gaps in care and outcomes, and developing new models of care that mobilise the wider primary

care team to reduce burden on general practice.

5 CVD: Primary Care Intelligence Packs

6

Data and methods

This slide pack compares the clinical commissioning group (CCG) with CCGs in its strategic transformation plan (STP) and

England. Where a CCG is in more than one STP, it has been allocated to the STP with the greatest geographical or

population coverage. The slide pack also compares the CCG to its 10 most similar CCGs in terms of demography, ethnicity

and deprivation. For information on the methodology used to calculate the 10 most similar CCGs please go to:

http://www.england.nhs.uk/resources/resources-for-ccgs/comm-for-value/

The 10 most similar CCGs to NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG are:

NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Waltham Forest CCG

NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Slough CCG

NHS North Manchester CCG

NHS Birmingham South and Central CCG

NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG

The majority of data used in the packs is taken from the 2015/16 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Where this is

not the case, this is indicated in the slide. All GP practices that were included in the 2015/16 QOF are included. Full

source data are shown in the appendix.

For the majority of indicators, the additional number of people that would be treated if all practices were to achieve as well

as the average of the top achieving practices is calculated. This is calculated by taking an average of the intervention rates

(ie the denominator includes exceptions) for the best 50% of practices in the CCG and applying this rate to all practices in

the CCG. Note, this number is not intended to be proof of a realisable improvement; rather it gives an indication of the

magnitude of available opportunity.


Benchmarking is helpful because it highlights

variation.

Of course it has long been acknowledged that some

variation is inevitable in the healthcare and outcomes

experienced by patients.

But John Wennberg, who has championed research

into clinical variation over four decades and who

founded the pioneering Dartmouth Atlas of Health

Care, concluded that much variation is unwarranted –

ie it cannot be explained on the basis of illness,

medical evidence, or patient preference, but is

accounted for by the willingness and ability of doctors

to offer treatment.

Benchmarking may not be conclusive. Its strength lies not in

the answers it provides but in the questions it generates for

CCGs and practices.

For example:

1. How much variation is there in detection, management,

exception reporting and outcomes?

2. How many people would benefit if average performers

improved to the level of the best performers?

3. How many people would benefit if the lowest performers

matched the achievement of the average?

4. What are better performers doing differently in the way

they provide services in order to achieve better outcomes?

5. How can the CCG support low and average performers to

help them match the achievement of the best?

6. How can we build clinical leadership to drive quality

improvement?

A key observation about benchmarking data is

that it does not tell us why there is variation. Some of the

variation may be explained by population or case mix and

some may be unwarranted. We will not know unless we

investigate.

The variation that exists between

demographically similar CCGs and

between practices illustrates the local

potential to improve care and outcomes

for our patients

There are legitimate reasons for exception reporting. But …….

Excepting patients from indicators puts them at risk of not receiving optimal care and of having worse outcomes. It is also

likely to increase health inequalities. The substantial variation seen in exception reporting for some indicators suggests

that some practices are more effective than others at reaching their whole population. Benchmarking exception reporting

allows us to identify the practices that need support to implement the strategies adopted by low excepting practices.

Why does variation matter?

7

Cluster methodology: your most similar practices

Each practice has been grouped on the basis of demographic data into

15 national clusters. These demographic factors cover:

• deprivation (practice level)

• age profile (% < 5, % < 18, % 15-24, % 65+, % 75+, % 85+)

• ethnicity (% population of white ethnicity)

• practice population side

These demographic factors closely align with those used to calculate

the “Similar 10 CCGs”.

These demographic factors have been used to compare practices with

similar populations to account for potential factors which may drive

variation. Some local interpretation will need to be applied to the data

contained within the packs as practices with significant outlying

population characteristics e.g. university populations or care home

practices will need further contextualisation.

Further detailed information including full technical methodology and a

full PDF report on each of the 15 practice clusters is available here:

https://github.com/julianflowers/geopractice.


https://github.com/julianflowers/geopractice

7

9

22

21

17

31

14

15

12

9

3

5

1

1

1

-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%

WELLINGTON ROAD SURGERY

EMERSONS GREEN MEDICAL CENTRE

LEAP VALLEY MEDICAL CENTRE

CHRISTCHURCH FAMILY MEDICAL CENTRE

CONISTON MEDICAL PRACTICE

FROME VALLEY MEDICAL CENTRE

ST MARY STREET SURGERY

KINGSWOOD HEALTH CENTRE

CONCORD MEDICAL CENTRE

KENNEDY WAY SURGERY

BRADLEY STOKE SURGERY

THE WILLOW SURGERY

CLOSE FARM SURGERY

PILNING SURGERY

COURTSIDE SURGERY

ALMONDSBURY SURGERY

STOKE GIFFORD MEDICAL CENTRE

ORCHARD MEDICAL CENTRE

WEST WALK SURGERY

THORNBURY HEALTH CENTRE - BURNEY

The performance of every practice in the GP cluster contributes to the average of the top performing

50% of practices to form a benchmark.

The difference between the benchmark and the selected practices is displayed on this chart. The benchmark will

most likely be different for different practices as they are in different clusters, so the difference is the key measure

here. If the practice performance is below the benchmark, the difference is applied to the denominator plus

exceptions to demonstrate potential gains on a practice basis. The potential gains on a CCG basis are calculated

based on the difference between the top 5 performing closest CCGs and the selected CCG, applied to the

denominator plus exceptions.

Cluster methodology: calculating potential gains

Raw difference between the

practice value

and the average of the

highest or lowest 50% of

similar cluster practices

Potential opportunity if

the practice value was

to move to the average

of the highest 50% of

similar cluster practices

Potential opportunity if the

CCG value were to move

to the average of the top 5

performing closest CCGs


CVD prevention


CVD prevention “The NHS needs a radical upgrade

in prevention if it is to be

sustainable”

5 year Forward View 2014

The size of the prevention problem

• 2/3 of adults are obese or overweight

• 1/3 of adults are physically inactive

• average smoking prevalence is 17% but is much

higher in some communities

• in high risk conditions like atrial fibrillation, high blood

pressure, diabetes and high ten year CVD risk score,

up to half of all people do not receive preventive

treatments that are known to be highly effective at

preventing heart attacks and strokes

• around 90% of people with familial hypercholestero-

laemia are undiagnosed and untreated despite their

average 10 year reduction in life expectancy

This is because England faces an epidemic of largely

preventable non-communicable diseases, such as heart

disease and stroke, cancer, Type 2 diabetes and liver disease.

The Global Burden of Disease Study (next slide) shows us that

the leading causes of premature mortality include diet,

tobacco, obesity, raised blood pressure, physical inactivity and

raised cholesterol. The radical upgrade in prevention needs

population-level approaches. But it also needs interventions in

primary care for individuals with behavioural and clinical risk

factors.

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

Unsafe water/ sanitation/ handwashing

Unsafe sex

Other environmental risks

Sexual abuse and violence

Child and maternal malnutrition

Low bone mineral density

Air pollution

Occupational risks

Low physical activity

Low glomerular filtration rate

High total cholesterol

High fasting plasma glucose

Alcohol and drug use

High systolic blood pressure

High body-mass index

Tobacco smoke

Dietary risks

HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis

Diarrhea, lower respiratory & other common infectious diseases

Neglected tropical diseases & malaria

Maternal disorders

Neonatal disorders

Nutritional deficiencies

Other communicable, maternal, neonatal, & nutritional diseases

Neoplasms

Cardiovascular diseases

Chronic respiratory diseases

Cirrhosis

Digestive diseases

Neurological disorders

Mental & substance use disorders

Diabetes, urogenital, blood, & endocrine diseases

Musculoskeletal disorders

Other non-communicable diseases

Transport injuries

Unintentional injuries

Self-harm and interpersonal violence

Forces of nature, war, & legal intervention

Percent of total disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)

Social prescribing and wellbeing hubs offer new

models for supporting behaviour change while reducing

burden on general practice.

The NHS Health Check is a systematic approach to

identifying local people at high risk of CVD, offering

behaviour change support and early detection of the

high risk but often undiagnosed conditions such as

hypertension, atrial fibrillation, CKD, diabetes and pre-

diabetes.

Question: What proportion of our local eligible

population is receiving the NHS Health Check and how

effective is the follow-up management of their clinical

risk factors in primary care?

11 11 CVD: Primary Care Intelligence Packs

Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Risk Factors for premature death and disability caused by CVD in England, expressed as a percentage of total disability-adjusted life-years

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

Other environmental risks

Low glomerular filtration rate

Air pollution

Low physical activity

High fasting plasma glucose

Tobacco smoke

High body-mass index

High total cholesterol

Dietary risks

High systolic blood pressure

Percentage of total CVD disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)


17.0%

17.6%

18.6%

18.7%

18.8%

19.2%

19.7%

19.8%

20.5%

21.1%

24.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Slough CCG

NHS Enfield CCG


NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Luton CCG




NHS Haringey CCG


13

Estimated smoking prevalence (QOF) by CCG

Comparison with demographically similar CCGs

Note: It has been found that the proportion of

patients recorded as smokers correlates well

with IHS smoking prevalence and is a good

estimate of the actual smoking prevalence in

local areas,

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e005217.abs

tract

Definition: denominator of QOF clinical indicator

SMOKE004 ( number of patients 15+ who are

recorded as current smokers) divided by GP

practice’s estimated number of patients 15+


• prevalence of 20.5% in NHS Barking

and Dagenham CCG

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e005217.abstract

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e005217.abstract

12.4%

12.7%

15.1%

15.7%

15.9%

16.0%

16.8%

18.3%

18.7%

19.0%

19.3%

20.1%

20.3%

20.4%

20.7%

20.7%

20.8%

21.0%

21.1%

21.6%

21.6%

21.8%

21.9%

22.0%

22.0%

22.1%

22.1%

22.4%

22.5%

22.6%

22.6%

23.2%

24.2%

24.3%

25.5%

26.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

THE VM SURGERY F82665

DR R CHIBBER'S PRACTICE F82647

BARKING MEDICAL GROUP PRACTICE F82018

VICTORIA MEDICAL CENTRE F82034

DR P PRASAD'S PRACTICE F82027

THE WHITE HOUSE SURGERY F82612

ABBEY MEDICAL CENTRE F82625

GREEN LANE SURGERY F82661

DR M EHSAN Y01795

DR AA ANSARI'S PRACTICE F82650

DR GS KALKAT'S PRACTICE F82676

PRIME PRACTICE PARTNERSHIP Y01719

CHILD & FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE Y02583

FIVE ELMS MEDICAL PRACTICE F82012

HIGHGROVE SURGERY F82680

DR DP SHAH'S PRACTICE F82679

HALBUTT STREET SURGERY F82001

DR K JOHN'S PRACTICE F82042

PORTERS AVENUE HEALTH CENTRE Y02575

DR M FATEH'S PRACTICE F82003

DR A MOGHAL'S PRACTICE F82677

DR SZ HAIDER'S PRACTICE F82038

MARKS GATE HEALTH CENTRE F82604

DR M GOYAL'S PRACTICE F82005

HEATHWAY MEDICAL CENTRE F82634

LABURNUM HEALTH CENTRE F82051

DR KM ALKAISY PRACTICE F82678

DR C OLA'S PRACTICE F82621

DR V GORIPARTHI'S PRACTICE F82660

DR AK MITTAL'S PRACTICE F82668

GABLES SURGERY F82642

DR BK JAISWAL'S PRACTICE F82025

URSWICK MEDICAL CENTRE F82017

JOHN SMITH MEDICAL CENTRE F82040

VENKAT HEALTH CENTRE F82004

DR SN AHMAD'S PRACTICE F82015

GP Practice CCG

14

Estimated smoking prevalence (QOF) by GP practice

Note: This method is thought to be a reasonably

robust method in estimating smoking prevalence

for the majority of GP practices. However,

caution is advised for extreme estimates of

smoking prevalence and those with high

numbers of smoking status not recorded and

exceptions.


• 32,036 people who are recorded as

smokers in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• GP practice range: 12.4% to 26.0%

Hypertension


16

The Missing Millions On average, each CCG in England has 26,000 residents with

undiagnosed hypertension – these individuals are unaware of

their increased cardiovascular risk and are untreated.

What might help? • support practices to share audit data and systematically

identify gaps and opportunities for improved detection and

management of hypertension

• work with practices and local authorities to maximise

uptake and follow up in the NHS Health Check

• support access to self-test BP stations in waiting rooms

and to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

• commission community pharmacists to offer blood

pressure measurement, diagnosis and management

support, including support for adherence to medication

What questions should we ask in our CCG? 1. for each indicator how wide is the variation in achievement

and exception reporting?

2. how many people would benefit if all practices performed

as well as the best?

3. how can we support practices who are average or below

average to perform as well as the best in:

• detection of hypertension

• management of hypertension What do we know? • at least half of all heart attacks and strokes are

caused by high blood pressure and it is a major risk

factor for chronic kidney disease and cognitive decline

• treatment is very effective – every 10mmHg reduction

in systolic blood pressure lowers risk of heart attack

and stroke by 20%

• despite this 4 out of 10 adults with hypertension, over

5 and a half million people in England, remain

undiagnosed

• and even when the condition is identified, treatment is

often suboptimal, with blood pressure poorly

controlled in about 1 out of 3 individuals

Hypertension

High blood pressure is common and costly • it affects around a quarter of all adults

• the NHS costs of hypertension are around £2bn

• social costs are probably considerably higher


The Global Burden of Disease

Study confirmed high blood pressure as

a leading cause of premature death

and disability

0.59

0.50

0.53

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.58

0.59

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

England

NHS Tower Hamlets CCG

NHS City And Hackney CCG


NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG

NHS Barking And Dagenham CCG

Ratio

0.59

0.50

0.53

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.58

0.59

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

England




NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG


Ratio

17

Hypertension observed prevalence compared with expected prevalence by CCG

Comparison with CCGs in the STP


Note: this slide shows Hypertension prevalence

estimates created using data from QOF

hypertension registers 2014/15 and

Undiagnosed hypertension estimates for adults

16 years and older. 2014. Department of Primary

Care & Public Health, Imperial College London

• the ratio of those diagnosed with

hypertension versus those expected

to have hypertension is 0.59. This

compares to 0.59 for England

• this suggests that 59% of people with

hypertension have been diagnosed

0.55

0.56

0.56

0.56

0.56

0.57

0.57

0.59

0.59

0.59

0.60

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

NHS Haringey CCG




NHS Slough CCG

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Enfield CCG



NHS Greenwich CCG

18

Hypertension observed prevalence compared with expected prevalence by CCG



0.43

0.44

0.48

0.48

0.50

0.51

0.52

0.52

0.52

0.52

0.53

0.53

0.54

0.54

0.55

0.56

0.56

0.56

0.56

0.57

0.59

0.61

0.61

0.62

0.62

0.62

0.63

0.63

0.64

0.67

0.67

0.71

0.73

0.75

0.79

0.82

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0





















DR M EHSAN Y01795
















Ratio

GP practice CCG

19

Hypertension observed prevalence compared with expected prevalence by GP practice

• it is estimated that there are 17,085

people with undiagnosed

hypertension in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• GP practice range of observed to

expected hypertension prevalence

0.43 to 0.82


79.6%

77.7%

77.7%

78.3%

79.0%

79.6%

85.4%

86.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

England



NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG



79.6%

77.7%

77.7%

78.3%

79.0%

79.6%

85.4%

86.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

England



NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG



20

Percentage of patients with hypertension whose last blood pressure reading (measured in

the preceding 12 months) is 150/90 mmHg or less by CCG


*Using QOF clinical indicator HYP006

denominator plus exceptions

• 24,470 people with hypertension

(diagnosed)* in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• 19,012 (77.7%) people whose blood

pressure is <= 150/90

• 1,082 (4.4%) people who are

excepted from optimal control

• 4,376 (17.9%) additional people

whose blood pressure is not <=

150/90


74.7%

76.0%

76.8%

77.7%

77.7%

78.1%

78.5%

78.5%

78.5%

80.2%

80.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Luton CCG




NHS Enfield CCG


NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Slough CCG

21

Percentage of patients with hypertension whose last blood pressure reading (measured in

the preceding 12 months) is 150/90 mmHg or less by CCG



39

44

88

109

108

108

109

124

85

86

179

92

152

78

55

87

133

154

137

127

69

87

140

99

133

184

138

355

107

128

152

409

326

479

361

137

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






















DR M EHSAN Y01795















No treatment Exceptions reported

22

Percentage of patients with hypertension whose last blood pressure reading

(measured in the preceding 12 months) is not 150/90 mmHg or less by GP practice

• in total, including exceptions, there

are 5,458 people whose blood

pressure is not <= 150/90



66.5%

69.8%

72.5%

73.9%

78.5%

80.2%

80.6%

84.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

England

NHS Havering CCG



NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG



66.5%

69.8%

72.5%

73.9%

78.5%

80.2%

80.6%

84.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

England

NHS Havering CCG



NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG



23

New diagnosis of hypertension who have been given a CVD risk assessment whose

CVD risk exceeds 20% and treated with statins by CCG


• 119 people with a new diagnosis* of

hypertension with a CVD risk of 20%

or higher in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• 100 (84%) people who are currently

treated with statins

• 17 (14.3%) people who are exempted

from treatment with statins

• 2 (1.7%) additional people who are

not currently treated with statins

*Using the QOF clinical indicator CVD-PP001



70.7%

70.8%

72.5%

74.3%

74.5%

75.3%

76.9%

79.4%

80.0%

84.0%

84.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Luton CCG


NHS Slough CCG



70.7%

70.8%

72.5%

74.3%

74.5%

75.3%

76.9%

79.4%

80.0%

84.0%

84.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Luton CCG


NHS Slough CCG



24


CVD risk exceeds 20% and treated with statins by CCG



1

1

4

1

1

2

1

4

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





























DR M EHSAN Y01795









25


CVD risk exceeds 20% and not treated with statins by GP practice


are 19 people who are not treated

with statins



Stroke


27

Only a half of people with known

AF who then suffer a stroke have been

anticoagulated before their stroke.

Stroke is one of the leading causes of

premature death and disability. Stroke is

devastating for individuals and families, and

accounts for a substantial proportion of health

and social care expenditure.

What might help? • increase opportunistic pulse checking especially in over 65s

• support practices to share audit data and systematically

identify gaps and opportunities for improved detection and

management of AF - eg GRASP-AF

• promote systematic use of CHADS-VASC and HASBLED to

ensure those at high risk are offered stroke prevention

• promote systematic use of Warfarin Patient Safety Audit Tool

to ensure optimal time in therapeutic range for people on

warfarin

• develop local consensus statement on risk-benefit balance for

anticoagulants, including the newer treatments (NOACs)

• work with practices and local authorities to maximise uptake

and clinical follow up in the NHS Health Check

• commission community pharmacists to offer pulse checks,

anticoagulant monitoring, and support for adherence to

medication

What questions should we ask in our CCG? 1. for each indicator how wide is the variation in

detection, treatment and exception reporting?

2. how many people would benefit if all practices

performed as well as the best?

3. how can we support practices who are average

and below average to perform as well as the

best in detection of atrial fibrillation and stroke

prevention with anticoagulation.

Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke

by a factor of 5, and strokes caused by AF are

often more severe, with higher mortality and

greater disability.

Anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke in

people with AF by two thirds.

Despite this, AF is underdiagnosed and under

treated: up to a third of people with AF are

unaware they have the condition and even when

diagnosed inadequate treatment is common –

large numbers do not receive anticoagulants or

have poor anticoagulant control.

Stroke prevention


0.70

0.44

0.50

0.51

0.54

0.56

0.57

0.61

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

England

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG





NHS Havering CCG

0.70

0.44

0.50

0.51

0.54

0.56

0.57

0.61

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

England

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG





NHS Havering CCG

28

Atrial fibrillation observed prevalence compared to expected prevalence by CCG


Note: This slide compares the prevalence of

atrial fibrillation recorded in QOF in 2015/16 to

the estimated prevalence of atrial fibrillation,

taken from National Cardiovascular Intelligence

Network estimates produced in 2017. The

estimates were developed by applying age-sex

specific prevalence rates as reported by Norberg

et al (2013) to GP population estimates from

NHS Digital. Estimates reported are adjusted for

age and sex of the local population.

• the ratio of those diagnosed with atrial

fibrillation versus those expected to

have atrial fibrillation is 0.56. This

compares to 0.7 for England


atrial fibrillation have been diagnosed.


0.51

0.52

0.54

0.55

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.62

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7


NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Slough CCG


NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG




29

Atrial fibrillation observed prevalence compared to expected prevalence by CCG



0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0










DR M EHSAN Y01795



























Ratio

GP practice CCG

30

Atrial fibrillation observed prevalence compared with expected prevalence by GP practice


people with undiagnosed atrial

fibrillation in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• GP practice range of observed to

expected atrial fibrillation prevalence

0.2 to 1


77.9%

75.2%

75.5%

75.7%

76.5%

77.4%

77.7%

78.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England

NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG




NHS Newham CCG


Optimal management No treatment Exceptions reported

31

In patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more,

the percentage treated with anti-coagulation therapy by CCG


• 1,384 people with atrial fibrillation*

with a CHA2DS2-VASc score >= 2 in


• 1,071 (77.4%) people treated with

anti-coagulation therapy

• 123 (8.9%) people who are

exceptions

• 190 (13.7%) additional people with a

recorded CHA2DS2-VASc score >= 2

who are not treated

*Using the QOF clinical indicator AF007



70.4%

71.1%

72.8%

73.8%

74.1%

75.7%

77.4%

78.1%

79.5%

79.8%

80.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Enfield CCG




NHS Luton CCG


NHS Slough CCG



32

In patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more, the percentage

treated with anti-coagulation therapy by CCG



1

3

3

3

3

3

6

6

16

6

2

18

2

7

19

5

7

9

11

5

14

9

26

21

11

7

22

6

12

5

6

5

18

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


















DR M EHSAN Y01795




















33

In patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more, the percentage treated

with anti-coagulation therapy by GP practice


are 313 people with a recorded

CHA2DS2-VASc score >= 2 who are

not treated



5

12

3

4

3

7

3

10

10

13

3

1

1

-35%-30%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%

CHILD & FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE

PRIME PRACTICE PARTNERSHIP

JOHN SMITH MEDICAL CENTRE

GREEN LANE SURGERY

THE VM SURGERY

DR AA ANSARI'S PRACTICE

ABBEY MEDICAL CENTRE

VENKAT HEALTH CENTRE

HIGHGROVE SURGERY

DR V GORIPARTHI'S PRACTICE

URSWICK MEDICAL CENTRE

DR SN AHMAD'S PRACTICE

MARKS GATE HEALTH CENTRE

DR K JOHN'S PRACTICE

DR DP SHAH'S PRACTICE

GABLES SURGERY

DR KM ALKAISY PRACTICE

DR GS KALKAT'S PRACTICE

DR C OLA'S PRACTICE

DR R CHIBBER'S PRACTICE

34 34 CVD: Primary Care Intelligence Packs

In patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more, the percentage treated

with anti-coagulation therapy by GP practice – opportunities compared to GP cluster

• using the GP cluster method of

calculating potential gains, if each

practice was to achieve as well as the

upper quartile of its national cluster,

then an additional 133 people would

be treated

Details of this methodology are available on slide

9. Click here to view them.

83.8%

82.9%

83.6%

83.9%

84.4%

84.6%

88.3%

93.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England


NHS Newham CCG


NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG



Below 150/90 Not below 150/90 Exceptions reported

35

Percentage of patients with a history of stroke whose last blood pressure reading

(measured in the preceding 12 months) is 150/90 mmHg or less by CCG


*Using the QOF clinical indicator STIA003


• 1,920 people with a history of stroke

or TIA* in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG


pressure is <= 150 / 90

• 68 (3.5%) people who are exceptions

• 241 (12.6%) additional people whose

blood pressure is not <= 150 / 90


78.9%

80.0%

82.9%

83.2%

83.3%

83.6%

83.6%

83.9%

83.9%

85.0%

87.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Luton CCG



NHS Greenwich CCG


NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Enfield CCG


NHS Slough CCG


36

Percentage of patients with a history of stroke whose last blood pressure reading




1

1

2

3

5

3

4

6

1

5

6

7

6

6

12

6

4

4

6

5

5

25

9

5

9

7

30

6

21

20

9

6

25

5

13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DR M EHSAN Y01795





































37

Percentage of patients with a history of stroke whose last blood pressure reading (measured

in the preceding 12 months) is not 150/90 mmHg or less by GP practice


are 309 people whose blood pressure

is not <= 150 / 90



91.8%

90.8%

90.9%

90.9%

91.0%

91.0%

91.0%

93.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England




NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG



38

Percentage of patients with a stroke shown to be non-haemorrhagic, or a history of TIA,

who have a record in the preceding 12 months that an anti-platelet agent, or an

anti-coagulant is being taken by CCG


*Using the QOF clinical indicator STIA007



• 1,124 people with a stroke shown to

be non-haemorrhagic* in NHS

Barking and Dagenham CCG

• 1,052 (93.6%) people who are taking

an anti-platetet agent or anti-

coagulant


• 24 (2.1%) additional people with no

treatment

88.3%

90.8%

90.9%

90.9%

91.1%

91.2%

91.3%

91.3%

91.5%

92.5%

93.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Luton CCG


NHS Greenwich CCG


NHS Enfield CCG


NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Slough CCG




39


who have a record in the preceding 12 months that an anti-platelet agent,

or an anti-coagulant is being taken by CCG



1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

1

7

3

1

2

3

1

2

2

7

1

3

4

4

5

5

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


























DR M EHSAN Y01795












40


who do not have a record in the preceding 12 months that an anti-platelet agent,

or an anti-coagulant is being taken by GP practice



are 72 people who are not taking an

anti-platelet agent or anti-coagulant


Diabetes


Type 2 Diabetes in numbers • diagnosed prevalence – 3.0 million

• undiagnosed diabetes – 900,000

• non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (high risk of diabetes) – 5 million

What might help • ensure universal participation by practices in the National

Diabetes Audit (NDA)

• benchmark practice level data from the NDA – and support

practices to explore variation

• increase support for patient education and shared

management

• maximise uptake of the NHS Health Check to aid detection of

diabetes and Non Diabetic Hyperglycaemia

• maximise uptake of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme

What questions should we ask in our CCG? 1. for each indicator how wide is the variation in achievement and

exception reporting?

2. how many people would benefit if all practices performed as well

as the best?

3. how can we support practices who are average and below

average to perform as well as the best in:

• detection of diabetes

• delivery of the 8 care processes and achievement of the 3

treatment targets

• identification and management of Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia

Type 2 diabetes is often preventable People at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes

can be identified through the NHS Health Check,

and the disease can be prevented or delayed in

many through intensive behaviour change support.

Complications of diabetes are preventable Diabetes is a major cause of premature death and

disability and greatly increases the risk of heart

disease and stroke, kidney failure, amputations and

blindness. 80% of NHS spending on diabetes goes

on managing these complications, most of which

could be prevented. There are 8 essential care

processes, in addition to retinal screening, that

together substantially reduce complication rates.

Despite this, around a half of people with diabetes

do not receive all 8 care processes, and there is

widespread variation between CCGs and practices

in levels of achievement

Diabetes prevention and management


Diabetes costs the NHS

£9.8 billion per year – and the

prevalence is rising

0.77

0.61

0.67

0.73

0.77

0.83

0.83

0.84

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

England



NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG



0.77

0.61

0.67

0.73

0.77

0.83

0.83

0.84

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

England



NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG



43

Diabetes observed prevalence compared with expected prevalence by CCG



Note: This slide compares the prevalence of

Diabetes recorded in QOF in 2015/16 to the

expected prevalence of Diabetes in 2016 taken

from the NCVIN diabetes prevalence model

produced in 2015.

• 0.83 ratio of observed to expected

diabetes prevalence in NHS Barking

and Dagenham CCG, compared to

0.77 in England

• this suggests 83% of people have

been diagnosed

0.65

0.65

0.67

0.74

0.78

0.80

0.81

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.85

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Haringey CCG


NHS Luton CCG

NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG





NHS Slough CCG

44

Diabetes observed prevalence compared with expected prevalence by CCG



4.1%

5.5%

5.7%

5.8%

5.8%

6.0%

6.1%

6.2%

6.7%

6.8%

6.8%

6.9%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

7.2%

7.3%

7.4%

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

7.7%

7.9%

8.1%

8.1%

8.5%

8.8%

8.9%

9.1%

9.2%

9.6%

9.7%

11.1%

12.9%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%









DR M EHSAN Y01795




























GP practice CCG

45

Diabetes prevalence by GP practice

• GP practice range of observed

diabetes 4.1% to 12.9%

• there are an estimated 2,321 people

with undiagnosed diabetes in NHS



Note: The estimated number of undiagnosed

people with diabetes has been calculated by

multiplying the estimated prevalence rate to the

2015/16 QOF list size and subtracting the

number of people on the diabetes register.

6.5%

6.8%

5.7%

6.3%

7.6%

6.7%

8.5%

8.1%

1.9%

1.3%

3.6%

2.3%

1.5%

3.3%

1.7%

2.4%

11.2%

8.9%

9.5%

11.6%

11.1%

10.9%

11.3%

12.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

England



NHS Havering CCG



NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG

Diabetes prevalence Undiagnosed diabetes prevalence

Expected non-diabetic hyperglycaemia prevalence

6.5%

6.8%

5.7%

6.3%

7.6%

6.7%

8.5%

8.1%

1.9%

1.3%

3.6%

2.3%

1.5%

3.3%

1.7%

2.4%

11.2%

8.9%

9.5%

11.6%

11.1%

10.9%

11.3%

12.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

England



NHS Havering CCG



NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG

Diabetes prevalence Undiagnosed diabetes prevalence

Expected non-diabetic hyperglycaemia prevalence

46

Expected total prevalence of diabetes and non-diabetic hyperglycaemia

• the estimated total prevalence of

diabetes in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG is 9.1% (diagnosed

and undiagnosed)

• in addition, there are an estimated

11.1% of people in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG who are at

increased risk of developing diabetes

(i.e. with non-diabetic

hyperglycaemia)

Note: Prevalence estimates of non-diabetic

hyperglycaemia were developed using Health

Survey for England (HSE) data. Five years of

HSE data were combined, 2009- 2013. The

estimates take into account the age, ethnic group

and estimated body mass index of the population.

These estimates were produced using the GP

registered population.


• this means that 20.2% of the

population in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG are estimated to

have diabetes, or at high risk of

developing of diabetes

52.6%

24.5%

24.8%

25.7%

28.1%

54.9%

62.8%

86.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

England

NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Havering CCG



NHS Newham CCG



52.6%

24.5%

24.8%

25.7%

28.1%

54.9%

62.8%

86.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

England

NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Havering CCG



NHS Newham CCG



47

People with diabetes who had eight care processes by CCG 2015/16

• overall practice participation in the

2015/16 audit was 81.4% in England

• data on care processes and treatment

targets are taken from the National


• in NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG,

36 out of 40 practices (90.0%)

participated in the NDA. Data is not

available for the remaining practices


• 28.1% of people with diabetes (of

practices who participated in the

audit) had the eight recommended

care processes in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG, compared to 52.6%

in England

2.3%

5.9%

6.8%

7.2%

7.9%

8.2%

9.7%

12.9%

13.7%

13.8%

15.8%

19.4%

20.6%

22.2%

24.0%

25.1%

26.4%

27.6%

28.2%

31.6%

32.4%

34.4%

34.8%

35.4%

39.3%

40.2%

42.4%

47.0%

48.6%

52.2%

55.1%

58.8%

63.5%

70.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%










DR M EHSAN Y01795



























GP practice Average of practices in the CCG who participated in the audit

48

People with diabetes who had eight care processes by GP practice, 2015/16


• achievement - 8 care processes: in

practices who provided data via the

NDA, between 2.3% and 70.4% of

patients received all 8 care processes

• at least 7,764 people did not receive

the eight care processes

39.0%

34.5%

35.8%

37.0%

38.0%

38.2%

42.3%

43.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

England


NHS Havering CCG


NHS Redbridge CCG


NHS Newham CCG


39.0%

34.5%

35.8%

37.0%

38.0%

38.2%

42.3%

43.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

England


NHS Havering CCG


NHS Redbridge CCG


NHS Newham CCG


49

People with diabetes who met all 3 treatment targets by CCG, 2015/16


• 34.5% of people with diabetes (of

practices who participated in the

audit) met the three treatment targets

in NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG,

compared to 39.0% in England

23.4%

24.4%

24.7%

25.4%

27.9%

28.6%

28.6%

30.2%

30.7%

30.8%

31.4%

32.1%

32.2%

33.7%

35.2%

35.2%

35.6%

35.6%

35.7%

36.4%

36.4%

36.4%

37.5%

37.7%

38.0%

38.2%

38.4%

39.9%

40.4%

40.6%

40.7%

41.3%

42.6%

49.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








DR M EHSAN Y01795





























GP practice Average of practices in the CCG who participated in the audit

50

People with diabetes who met all 3 treatment targets by GP practice, 2015/16


• achievement - 3 treatment targets: in

practices who provided data via the

NDA, between 23.4% and 49.0% of

patients achieved all 3 treatment

targets

• at least 6,003 people did not meet the

three treatment targets

49

78

49

31

18

80

15

89

42

33

15

13

20

8

9

12

11

6

2

-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%



PORTERS AVENUE HEALTH CENTRE


DR M EHSAN


DR AK MITTAL'S PRACTICE

BARKING MEDICAL GROUP PRACTICE

THE WHITE HOUSE SURGERY

DR SZ HAIDER'S PRACTICE


THE VM SURGERY


DR C OLA'S PRACTICE

DR K JOHN'S PRACTICE

ABBEY MEDICAL CENTRE


LABURNUM HEALTH CENTRE

JOHN SMITH MEDICAL CENTRE

HIGHGROVE SURGERY

51

People with diabetes who met all 3 treatment targets by GP practice, 2015/16

- opportunities compared to GP cluster







be treated



Kidney


Chronic Kidney Disease can

progress to kidney failure and it

substantially increases the risk

of heart attack and stroke.

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is common.

It is one of the commonest co-morbidities and affects a third

of people over 75. In 2010 it was estimated to cost the NHS

around £1.5bn. Average length of stay in hospital tends to

be longer and outcomes are considerably worse:

approximately 7,000 excess strokes and 12,000 excess

heart attacks occur each year in people with CKD

compared to those without.

Individuals with CKD are also at much higher risk of

developing acute kidney injury when they have an

intercurrent illness such as pneumonia What might help • Support practices to share audit data and systematically

identify gaps and opportunities for improved detection

and management of CKD.

• Promote uptake of and follow up from the NHS Health

Check to aid detection and management of CKD

• Offer local training and education in the detection and

management of CKD


achievement and exception reporting?

2. how many people would benefit if all practices

performed as well as the best?

3. how can we support practices who are average and

below average to perform as well as the best in:

• detection of CKD

• more systematic delivery of evidence based care

Late diagnosis of CKD is common. Around a third of people with CKD are undiagnosed. More

opportunistic testing and improved uptake of the NHS

Health Check will increase detection rates.

Evidence based guidance from NICE highlights CVD

risk reduction, good blood pressure control and

management of proteinuria as essential steps to reduce the

risk of cardiovascular events and progression to kidney

failure. Despite this there is often significant variation

between practices in achievement and exception reporting.

Management of chronic kidney disease


0.68

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.55

0.60

0.61

0.68

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

England

NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG



NHS Newham CCG



Ratio

0.68

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.55

0.60

0.61

0.68

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

England

NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG



NHS Newham CCG



Ratio

54

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) observed prevalence (2015/16) compared

with expected prevalence (2011) by CCG


Note: This slide compares the prevalence of CKD

recorded in QOF in 2015/16 to the expected

prevalence of CKD produced by the University of

Southampton in 2011. A small number of CCGs

have a ratio greater than 1. It is unlikely that all

people with CKD will be diagnosed in any CCG

and therefore a ratio greater than 1 suggests that

the figures are underestimating the true CKD

prevalence in the area. These ratios should be

taken as an indication of the comparative scale of

undiagnosed CKD rather than absolute figures.

• the ratio of those diagnosed with

chronic kidney disease versus those

expected to have chronic kidney

disease is 0.55. This compares to

0.68 for England


chronic kidney disease have been

diagnosed


0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

0.55

0.60

0.61

0.67

0.69

0.76

0.78

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Haringey CCG


NHS Enfield CCG


NHS Slough CCG

NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG




Ratio

55

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) observed prevalence (2015/16)

compared with expected prevalence (2011) by CCG



0.5%

0.7%

0.7%

0.7%

0.7%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.1%

1.6%

1.8%

1.9%

2.0%

2.1%

2.3%

2.3%

2.3%

2.3%

2.4%

2.4%

2.7%

3.0%

3.1%

3.3%

3.5%

3.6%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

4.1%

4.4%

4.7%

4.7%

4.9%

5.3%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%





















DR M EHSAN Y01795
















GP practice CCG

56

CKD prevalence by GP practice, 2015/16

Note: CCG estimates for the estimated

number of people with CKD are based on

applying a proportion from a resident based

population estimate to a GP registered

population. The characteristics of registered

and resident populations may vary in some

CCGs, and local interpretation is required.


people with undiagnosed chronic

kidney disease in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• GP practice range of observed CKD:

0.5% to 5.3%


74.4%

75.7%

75.8%

76.9%

77.8%

77.8%

79.9%

82.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England

NHS Redbridge CCG



NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG




57

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose last blood pressure reading (measured in

the preceding 12 months) is 140/85 mmHg or less by CCG, 2014/15


*Using the QOF clinical indicator CKD002

denominator plus exceptions. Note: as

the CKD002 indicator was removed from

the QOF in 15/16 this is historic data

taken from the 2014/15 QOF.

• 3,795 people with CKD (diagnosed*)

in NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG


pressure is <= 140 /85


exceptions

• 643 (16.9%) additional people whose



69.9%

71.7%

73.3%

74.5%

75.3%

75.5%

75.5%

75.8%

76.7%

76.9%

82.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Haringey CCG



NHS Enfield CCG


NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Greenwich CCG


NHS Slough CCG


58

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose last blood pressure reading (measured

in the preceding 12 months) is 140/85 mmHg or less by CCG, 2014/15



9

21

4

10

17

21

15

17

24

34

6

7

16

10

2

14

9

6

51

7

7

22

6

12

7

79

46

20

8

20

92

23

50

37

39

109

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DR M EHSAN Y01795

SHIFA MEDICAL PRACTICE Y01280

DR N NIRANJAN'S PRACTICE F82034



DR UA AFSER'S PRACTICE F86040

THIRD AVENUE SURGERY F82023






THE BARKING MEDICAL GROUP PRACTICE F82018

DR KP KASHYAP'S PRACTICE F82604






DR MF HAQ'S PRACTICE F82625

DR BB QUANSAH'S PRACTICE F82001










DR VK CHAWLA'S PRACTICE F82665

THE LAWNS MEDICAL CARE F82629




DR IA MOGHAL & ASSOCIATES F82004



DR MOHAN & ASSOCIATES F82017

Not below 140/85 Exceptions reported

59

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose last blood pressure reading (measured in

the preceding 12 months) is not 140/85 mmHg or less by GP practice, 2014/15



is not <= 140 / 85



76

26

23

27

46

12

10

9

20

30

-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%

DR MOHAN & ASSOCIATES



DR IA MOGHAL & ASSOCIATES


DR P PRASAD'S PRACTICE

DR A MOGHAL'S PRACTICE

DR VK CHAWLA'S PRACTICE






DR BK JAISWAL'S PRACTICE


THIRD AVENUE SURGERY



DR M EHSAN

DR N NIRANJAN'S PRACTICE

60

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose last blood pressure reading (measured in the preceding

12 months) is not 140/85 mmHg or less by GP practice, 2014/15 – opportunities compared to GP cluster






be treated




75.4%

61.6%

69.1%

70.4%

74.2%

74.7%

80.0%

84.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England

NHS Redbridge CCG


NHS Havering CCG

NHS Newham CCG




Recorded Not recorded Exceptions reported

61

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose notes have a record of a

urine albumin: creatinine ratio test in the preceding 12 months by CCG, 2014/15


• 3,796 people with CKD (diagnosed*)

in NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG

• 2,624 (69.1%) people who have a

record of urine albumin:creatinine

ratio test


exceptions

• 934 (24.6%) additional people who

have no record of urine

albumin:creatinine ratio test

*Using the QOF clinical indicator CKD004

denominator plus exceptions. Note: as

the CKD004 indicator was removed from

the QOF in 15/16 this is historic data

taken from the 2014/15 QOF.


67.2%

69.1%

70.6%

73.9%

74.7%

74.9%

76.0%

76.8%

77.0%

77.5%

82.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Luton CCG


NHS Greenwich CCG

NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Haringey CCG




NHS Slough CCG

Recorded Not recorded Exceptions reported

62

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose notes have a record of a

urine albumin: creatinine ratio test in the preceding 12 months by CCG, 2014/15



1

10

3

6

9

20

11

7

25

17

7

4

13

17

6

8

15

34

68

3

30

34

11

16

93

31

11

40

128

48

96

26

37

95

119

47

18

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

SHIFA MEDICAL PRACTICE Y01280

DR BB QUANSAH'S PRACTICE F82001


DR UA AFSER'S PRACTICE F86040



DR IA MOGHAL & ASSOCIATES F82004

THIRD AVENUE SURGERY F82023





DR N NIRANJAN'S PRACTICE F82034




DR KP KASHYAP'S PRACTICE F82604

DR VK CHAWLA'S PRACTICE F82665







DR MF HAQ'S PRACTICE F82625







THE BARKING MEDICAL GROUP PRACTICE F82018




DR MOHAN & ASSOCIATES F82017


THE LAWNS MEDICAL CARE F82629

DR M EHSAN Y01795

Not recorded Exceptions reported

63

Percentage of patients on the CKD register whose notes do not have a record of a

urine albumin: creatinine ratio test in the preceding 12 months by GP practice, 2014/15


are 1,172 people who have no record

of urine albumin:creatinine ratio test



Heart


Coronary Heart Disease is one of the principal causes of

premature death and disability. The key elements of management for

an individual who has already had a heart attack or angina are

symptom control and secondary prevention of further cardiovascular

events and premature mortality. There is robust evidence to support the

use of anti-platelet treatment, statins, beta-blockers and angiotensin

converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. There is

also robust evidence to support good control of blood pressure. Each of

these interventions is incentivised in QOF but variation in achievement

and exception reporting at practice level shows that there is often

considerable potential for improving management and outcomes.

What might help 1. roll out of GRASP-Heart Failure audit tool

that identifies people with heart failure who

are undiagnosed or under treated

2. education for health professionals to

promote evidence based management of

CHD and high quality measurement of

blood pressure

3. ensure access to rapid access diagnostic

clinics and specialist support for

management of angina and heart failure

4. ensure access to cardiac rehab for

individuals with CHD and heart failure


achievement and exception reporting?

2. how many people would benefit if all

practices performed as well as the best?

3. how can we support practices who are

average and below average to perform as

well as the best in:

• more systematic delivery of evidence

based care for people with CHD

• improved detection and management

of heart failure

Heart failure is a common and an important complication of

coronary heart disease and other conditions. Appropriate treatment

including up-titration of ace inhibitors and beta blockers in heart failure

due to LVSD can significantly improve symptom control and quality of

life, and improve outcomes for patients. Despite this, around a quarter

of people with heart failure are undetected and untreated. And amongst

those who are diagnosed, there is significant variation in the quality of

care.

Management of Heart Disease


Premature death and disability in people with

CHD can be reduced significantly by systematic

evidence based management in primary care

0.76%

0.40%

0.42%

0.45%

0.46%

0.54%

0.59%

0.64%

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8%

England



NHS Redbridge CCG


NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG


0.76%

0.40%

0.42%

0.45%

0.46%

0.54%

0.59%

0.64%

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8%

England



NHS Redbridge CCG


NHS Newham CCG

NHS Havering CCG


66

Heart failure prevalence by CCG


• prevalence of 0.42% in NHS Barking

and Dagenham CCG compared to

0.76% in England


0.42%

0.46%

0.47%

0.50%

0.50%

0.54%

0.56%

0.60%

0.61%

0.61%

0.68%

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8%



NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Slough CCG


NHS Greenwich CCG



67

Heart failure prevalence by CCG



0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.7%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%


































DR M EHSAN Y01795



GP practice CCG

68

Heart failure prevalence by GP practice

• 880 people with diagnosed heart

failure in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG



84.7%

84.3%

86.0%

86.5%

86.7%

88.7%

88.9%

89.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England

NHS Newham CCG





NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG

Treatment No treatment Exceptions reported

69

Percentage of patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction

(LVSD) who are treated with ACE-I / ARB by CCG


• 178 people with heart failure* with

LVSD in NHS Barking and Dagenham

CCG

• 154 (86.5%) people treated with ACE-

I or ARB


exceptions


not treated with ACE-I or ARB

*Using the QOF clinical indicator HF003



82.9%

83.3%

83.4%

83.7%

85.7%

86.5%

86.7%

87.2%

88.7%

89.0%

89.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Haringey CCG


NHS Slough CCG

NHS Croydon CCG


NHS Enfield CCG




NHS Greenwich CCG


70


(LVSD) who are treated with ACE-I / ARB by CCG



1

1

1

1

1

1

2

6

2

1

1

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

























DR M EHSAN Y01795













71


(LVSD) who are not treated with ACE-I / ARB by GP practice



with ACE-I or ARB



77.7%

73.3%

73.5%

74.5%

77.8%

80.4%

81.1%

87.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England

NHS Newham CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG




NHS Havering CCG



72

Percentage of patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD)

who are treated with ACE-I / ARB and BB by CCG


• 153 people with heart failure* with

LVSD treated with ACE-I/ARB in NHS


• 134 (87.6%) people treated with ACE-

I/ARB and BB



not treated with ACE-I/ARB and BB

*Using the QOF clinical indicator HF004



70.3%

70.6%

74.5%

75.2%

77.5%

79.9%

81.4%

82.0%

82.5%

84.6%

87.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




NHS Slough CCG

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Enfield CCG

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG


NHS Croydon CCG



73

Percentage of patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD)

who are treated with ACE-I / ARB and BB by CCG



1

2

1

1

1

6

2

2

1

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




























DR M EHSAN Y01795










74

Percentage of patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) who

are not treated with ACE-I / ARB and BB by GP practice



with ACE-I or ARB



88.2%

88.6%

88.9%

89.5%

90.1%

90.1%

92.3%

95.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England

NHS Havering CCG



NHS Redbridge CCG

NHS Newham CCG




75

Percentage of patients with CHD whose blood pressure reading



*Using the QOF clinical indicator CHD002


• 4,161 people with coronary heart

disease* in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG


pressure <= 150 / 90


exceptions

• 291 (7%) additional people whose



85.4%

85.7%

86.8%

87.0%

87.4%

88.9%

88.9%

89.0%

89.5%

90.4%

91.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Luton CCG

NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG




NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Enfield CCG



NHS Slough CCG


76





3

3

5

7

3

8

9

8

6

8

6

7

7

21

13

9

8

7

11

5

6

9

23

7

6

7

5

8

32

9

33

33

16

15

26

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DR M EHSAN Y01795




































Not below 150/90 Exceptions reported

77


(measured in the preceding 12 months) is not 150/90 mmHg or less by GP practice



is not <= 150 / 90



21

10

10

19

5

18

15

3

3

3

0

0

-35%-30%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%


GABLES SURGERY

DR M FATEH'S PRACTICE


VICTORIA MEDICAL CENTRE



HALBUTT STREET SURGERY



MARKS GATE HEALTH CENTRE

DR A MOGHAL'S PRACTICE

THE WHITE HOUSE SURGERY


FIVE ELMS MEDICAL PRACTICE

GREEN LANE SURGERY

DR BK JAISWAL'S PRACTICE



DR M EHSAN

78

Percentage of patients with CHD whose blood pressure reading (measured

in the preceding 12 months) is not 150/90 mmHg or less by GP practice –

opportunities compared to GP cluster






be treated




91.8%

92.0%

92.5%

92.7%

92.9%

92.9%

93.3%

94.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

England


NHS Havering CCG

NHS Redbridge CCG



NHS Newham CCG



79

Percentage of patients with CHD with a record in the preceding 12 months that aspirin,

an alternative anti-platelet therapy, or an anti-coagulant is being taken by CCG


*Using the QOF clinical indicator CHD005


• 4,164 people with coronary heart

disease* in NHS Barking and

Dagenham CCG

• 3,868 (92.9%) people who are taking

aspirin, an alternative anti-platelet

therapy, or an anti-coagulant


exceptions

• 168 (4%) additional people who are

not taking aspirin, an alternative anti-

platelet therapy, or an anti-coagulant


89.7%

90.7%

91.4%

91.4%

92.0%

92.2%

92.3%

92.8%

92.9%

92.9%

93.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NHS Luton CCG


NHS Haringey CCG

NHS Greenwich CCG


NHS Croydon CCG

NHS Slough CCG



NHS Enfield CCG



80

Percentage of patients with CHD with a record in the preceding 12 months that aspirin,

an alternative anti-platelet therapy, or an anti-coagulant is being taken by CCG



1

3

1

2

2

3

4

4

5

4

5

2

9

4

14

5

3

5

8

4

4

15

5

7

11

6

8

13

6

9

10

29

9

10

34

12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















DR M EHSAN Y01795

















81

Percentage of patients with CHD without a record in the preceding 12 months that aspirin,

an alternative anti-platelet therapy, or an anti-coagulant is being taken by GP practice


are 296 people are not taking aspirin,

an alternative anti-platelet therapy, or

an anti-coagulant



Some data on outcomes for people with

cardiovascular disease


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/122012/132013/142014/152015/16

Ag

e s

tand

ard

ise

d r

ate

(p

er

100

,00

0)

NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG England

83

Hospital admissions for coronary heart disease for all ages 2002/03 – 2015/16

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), 2002/03 - 2015/16, Copyright © 2017, Re‐used with the permission of NHS Digital. All rights reserved


the hospital admission rate for

coronary heart disease in 2015/16

was 672.8 (818) compared to 527.9

for England


0

50

100

150

200

250

2002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/122012/132013/142014/152015/16

Age s

tandard

ised r

ate

(p

er

100,0

00)


84

Hospital admissions for stroke for all ages 2002/03 – 2015/16

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), 2002/03 - 2015/16, Copyright © 2017, Re‐used with the permission of NHS Digital. All rights reserved


the hospital admission rate for stroke

in 2015/16 was 153.5 (183) compared

to 172.8 for England


293.0%

753.5%

445.8%

81.3%

150.0%

108.6%

136.8%

311.9%

1514.1%

160.3%

86.2%

180.1%

111.5%

161.2%

0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000% 1200% 1400% 1600%

RRT

Minor amputation

Major amputation

Stroke

Heart failure

Heart Attack

Angina


85

Additional risk of complications for people with diabetes, three year follow up, 2013/14

Note: This slide uses data from the National


• The risk of a stroke was 86.2% higher

and the risk of a heart attack was

111.5% higher compared to people

without diabetes. The risk of a major

amputation was 160.3% higher.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2002-04 2003-05 2004-06 2005-07 2006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12 2011-13 2012-14 2013-15

Ag

e s

tand

ard

ise

d r

ate

(p

er

100

0,0

00

)


86

Deaths from coronary heart disease, under 75s

Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data 2002 - 2015


the early mortality rate for coronary

heart disease in 2013-15 was 56,

compared to 40.6 for England


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2002-04 2003-05 2004-06 2005-07 2006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12 2011-13 2012-14 2013-15

Ag

e s

tand

ard

ise

d r

ate

(p

er

100

,00

0)


87

Deaths from stroke, under 75s

Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data 2002 - 2015


the early mortality rate for stroke in

2013-15 was 17.9, compared to 13.6

for England


88

Appendix Data sources

• Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), 2015/16, Copyright © 2016, re-used with the permission of NHS Digital. All rights

reserved

• Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia prevalence estimates, NCVIN, PHE: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-diabetes-

prevention-programme-non-diabetic-hyperglycaemia

• Diabetes prevalence estimates, NCVIN, PHE: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diabetes-prevalence-estimates-for-

local-populations

• CKD Prevalence model, G.Aitken, University of Southampton , 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ckd-

prevalence-estimates-for-local-and-regional-populations

• Hypertension prevalence estimates for local CCG populations. Created using data from: QOF hypertension registers 2014/15

and; Undiagnosed hypertension estimates for adults 16 years and older. 2014. Department of Primary Care & Public Health,

Imperial College London https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hypertension-prevalence-estimates-for-local-populations

• NHS Stop smoking services Copyright © 2014, NHS Digital

• Norberg J, Bäckström S , Jansson J-H, Johansson L. Estimating the prevalence of atrial fibrillation in a general population

using validated electronic health data. Clin Epidemiol 2013 ; 5 475 – 81.

• National Diabetes Audit, 2013/14 and 2015/16, Copyright © 2016, re-used with the permission of NHS Digital. All rights

reserved

• Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), 2002/03 - 2015/16, Copyright © 2017, Re‐used with the permission of NHS Digital. All rights

reserved

• Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data 2002 – 2015, Copyright © 2017, Re-used with the permission of the Office for

National Statistics. All rights reserved


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-diabetes-prevention-programme-non-diabetic-hyperglycaemia














https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diabetes-prevalence-estimates-for-local-populations











https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ckd-prevalence-estimates-for-local-and-regional-populations
















https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hypertension-prevalence-estimates-for-local-populations












89

Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities.

We do this through world-class science, knowledge and intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of

specialist public health services. We are an executive agency of the Department of Health, and are a distinct delivery

organisation with operational autonomy to advise and support government, local authorities and the NHS in a

professionally independent manner.

Public Health England

Wellington House

133-155 Waterloo Road

London SE1 8UG

Tel: 020 7654 8000

www.gov.uk/phe

Twitter: @PHE_uk

Facebook: www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland

© Crown copyright 2017

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open

Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit OGL or email [email protected]. Where we have

identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Published June 2017

Gateway number 2017095

About Public Health England

http://www.gov.uk/phe

https://twitter.com/PHE_uk

http://www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	13-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

CVD: Primary Care Intelligence Packs...the version number on your copy matches that of the one...

Documents