Cunliffeanalytics Cancer indicator trend analysis Stort Valley & Villages locality Summary of practice level cancer indicators 2010 to 2012 Version 2.1

cunliffeanalytics

Cancer indicator trend analysisStort Valley & Villages localitySummary of practice level cancer indicators 2010 to 2012

Version 2.1

August 2013

2

Introduction letter TBC

3

Contents

Page

Introduction – purpose of the report 4

Screening indicators 5• Percentage of females aged 50–70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months• Percentage of females aged 25–64 attending cervical screening within target period• Percentage of persons aged 60–69 screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months

Two week wait indicators 14• Two Week Wait referral ratio• Percentage of Two Week Wait referrals with cancer• Percentage of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals

Emergency admission indicator 23• Rate of emergency admissions with cancer per 100,000 population• Proportion of persons diagnosed with cancer via an emergency admission

Appendices 29• Definitions for indicators and demographics.

4

Introduction

Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide a three year summary of the key diagnosis and referral indicators for practices across Stort Valley & Villages locality.

Eight key indicators are reviewed at CCG, locality and practice level, highlighting how the activity rates have changed over the last three years, in relation to the current national targets and recommended ranges. The key indicators are:

• Percentage of females aged 50–70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months• Percentage of females aged 25–64 attending cervical screening within target period• Percentage of persons aged 60–69 screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months• Two Week Wait referral ratio• Percentage of Two Week Wait referrals with cancer• Percentage of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals• Rate of emergency admissions with cancer per 100,000 population• Proportion of persons diagnosed with cancer via an emergency admission

Please note that this report is based on a small number of practices and therefore the locality level percentages shown are sensitive to volatile changes.

Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit 2010 to 2012Maps contain: Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012 Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012, National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2012.

5

Percentage of females aged 50–70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months

Aim to be above the national target (70%). Consider actively encouraging patients to participate in screening programmes with letters or opportunistic prompts. GPs can be

influential here.

Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit

Definition: The number of females aged 50-70 registered to the practice screened adequately in previous 36 months divided by the number of eligible females (aged 50-70) on last day of the review period. (See appendix for full definition)

Indicator source(s): Data was extracted from the NHAIS via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.

6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

66%-69% 70%-73% 74%-77% 78%-81%

Num

ber of

pra

ctic

es

% Screened for breast cancer (F50-70)

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

2010 2011 2012

% S

cree

ned

for br

east

can

cer

( F50

-70)

CCG average remains just below the national average but above the national target of 70% for the last two years. The number of practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieving the national target increased from two practices in 2011 to five in 2012.

Targets achieved for 3 years

Summary statistics

1National target > 70%

Maps contain: Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012, Royal Mail data © Royal Mail

copyright and database right 2012, National Statistics data © Crown

copyright and database right 2012

2010 2011 2012

England mean average 71.8% 72.5% 72.5%

CCG mean average 69.3% 72.5% 71.4%

Locality practice min 72.7% 68.7% 74.2%

Locality practice max 75.2% 70.1% 78.0%

Practices above national target1 5(5) 2(5) 5(5)

Practices above national target (%) 100.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Locality range and CCG mean average

Rate distribution – has the profile changed?

National target

Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— National target

>70%

Key

2010

2011

2012

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 3 year coverage for 2007/08 to 2009/10, 2011: 2008/09 to 2010/11, 2012: 2009/10 to 2011/12

KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0

7

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

South St Parsonage Much Hadham HC Church St Central Surgery

% S

cree

ned

for br

east

can

cer

(F50

-70)

2010 2011 2012 National target

All five practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieved the 70% target in 2012.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 3 year coverage for 2007/08 to 2009/10, 2011: 2008/09 to 2010/11, 2012: 2009/10 to 2011/12

Key

Year on year increase

Year on year decrease

Above national target

Below national target

National target > 70%

Practice scores 2010 to 2012 Year on year rate At or above targetDifference

over2 years (pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82074 South St 75.2% q 69.4% p 78.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 8.6%

E82654 Parsonage 75.1% q 68.9% p 76.8% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 7.8%

E82021 Much Hadham HC 74.3% q 70.1% p 76.64% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 6.5%

E82067 Church St 72.8% q 68.7% p 76.6% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 7.9%

E82100 Central Surgery 72.7% q 70.0% p 74.2% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 4.1%

Percentage of females aged 25–64 attending cervical screening within target period


influential here.


Definition: The overall cervical screening coverage: the number of women registered at the practice screened adequately in the previous 42 months (if aged 24-49) or 66 months (if aged 50-64) divided by the number of eligible women on last day of review period. (See appendix for full definition)

Indicator source(s): Data was extracted from the NHAIS via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.

9

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

70%-74% 75%-79% 80%-84% 85%-89%

Num

ber of

pra

ctic

es

% Attending cervical screening (F25-64)

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2010 2011 2012

% A

tten

ding

cer

vica

l sc

reen

ing

( F25

-64)

CCG average remains steady and has been above the national average for the last three years but below the national target of 80%.

Summary statistics


2010 2011 2012









National target

Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— National target

>80%

Key

2010

2011

2012

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 3.5 or 5.5 year coverage for 2004/05Q3 to 2009/10, 2011: 2005/06Q3 to 2010/11, 2012: 2006/07Q3 to 2011/12


KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0




10

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Much Hadham HC Central Surgery Parsonage South St Church St

% A

tten

ding

cer

vica

l scr

eeni

ng (F2

5-64

)


One out of five practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieved the 80% target in 2012. Three practices within the locality failed to meet the 80% target for the last three years.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 3.5 or 5.5 year coverage for 2004/05Q3 to 2009/10, 2011: 2005/06Q3 to 2010/11, 2012: 2006/07Q3 to 2011/12


over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82021 Much Hadham HC 84.3% p 85.7% q 84.4% ¢ ¢ ¢ p -1.3%

E82100 Central Surgery 78.2% p 79.7% q 79.5% ¢ ¢ ¢ p -0.2%

E82654 Parsonage 78.9% p 80.2% q 77.8% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -2.5%

E82074 South St 79.6% q 78.9% q 77.5% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -1.4%

E82067 Church St 76.7% q 76.4% q 74.9% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -1.5%

Key






11

Percentage of persons, 60–69, screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months


influential here.


Definition: The number of persons aged 60-69 registered to the practice screened adequately in the previous 30 months divided by the number of eligible persons on last day of the review period. (See appendix for full definition)

Indicator source(s): Bowel Cancer Screening System (BCCS) via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.

12

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

45%-49% 50%-54% 55%-59% 60%-64%

Num

ber of

pra

ctic

es

% Screened for bowel cancer (60-69)

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

2010 2011 2012

% S

cree

ned

for bo

wel

can

cer

(60-

69)

2010 2011 2012







CCG average has increased over the last 3 years, but remains below the national target of 60%. 2012 saw an increase in the proportion 60-69 year olds being screened across the Stort Valley & Villages locality.

Summary statistics




National target

Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— National target

>60%

Key

2010

2011

2012

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2.5 year coverage for 2007/08Q3 to 2009/10, 2011: 2008/09Q3 to 2010/11, 2012: 2009/10Q3 to 2011/12


KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0




13

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Church St South St Central Surgery Much Hadham HC Parsonage

% S

cree

ned

for bo

wel

canc

er (

60-6

9)


Three out of five practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieved the 60% target in 2012. Two practices within the locality failed to achieved the 60% target during the last three years.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2.5 year coverage for 2007/08Q3 to 2009/10, 2011: 2008/09Q3 to 2010/11, 2012: 2009/10Q3 to 2011/12


over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82067 Church St 55.8% p 57.3% p 62.1% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 4.8%

E82074 South St 59.2% q 58.8% p 60.9% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 2.1%

E82100 Central Surgery 54.1% p 55.1% p 60.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 4.9%

E82021 Much Hadham HC 57.1% p 58.6% q 57.8% ¢ ¢ ¢ p -0.8%

E82654 Parsonage 49.6% p 52.2% p 56.3% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 4.1%

Key






Two Week Wait referral ratio (Indirectly age standardised )

Aim to be referring within 20% of the England average two week wait referral rate. Rates outside this range may indicate over/under use of the two week wait referral route.

You may wish to audit your referrals against NICE cancer referral guidance.


Definition: The number of Two Week Wait referrals where cancer is suspected multiplied by 100,000 divided by the list size of the practice in question.

Indicator source(s): Trent Cancer Registry based on Cancer Waiting Times data for England, 2011/12, held on the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database.

15

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

40%-59% 120%+ 80%-99% 100%-119%

Num

ber of

pra

ctic

es

Referral ratio (IAS)

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

2010 2011 2012

Refe

rral

rat

io (

IAS1

)

The proportion of practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieving the best practice range of 80% to 120% has remained steady for the last three years.

Summary statistics

1Best practice range = 80% to 120%, practices with less than 5 referrals excluded.

2010 2011 2012


CCG mean average n/a n/a n/a



Practices within best practice range1 3(5) 2(5) 3(5)

Practices within best practice range (%) 60.0% 40.0% 60.0%


Referral ratio distribution – has the profile changed?Best practice

range

Key

Locality range

— Best practice range

= 80% to 120%

Key

2010

2011

2012

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2009/10, 2011: 2010/11, 2012: 2011/12

Stort Valley & Villages practices achieving the best practice range for 3 years

KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0




16

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Parsonage South St Church St Central Surgery Much Hadham HC

Refe

rral

ratio

(in

dire

ctag

e st

anda

rdised

)

2010 2011 2012 Best practice range

Three out of five practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality were within the best practice range of 80% to 20% in 2012. One practice failed to achieve the best practice range for the last three years.


Practice scores 2010 to 2012 Year on year rate Within best practice rangeDifference

over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82654 Parsonage 69.2% p 74.0% p 98.9% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 24.9%

E82074 South St 83.8% p 90.0% p 97.4% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 7.4%

E82067 Church St 90.3% q 87.9% q 86.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -1.9%

E82100 Central Surgery 109.3% q 77.4% q 72.3% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -5.1%

E82021 Much Hadham HC 60.6% q 57.5% q 56.9% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -0.6%

Key



Within best practice range

Outside best practice range

Best practice 80% to 120%

Percentage of Two Week Wait referrals with cancer

Aim to have conversion rate between 8-14%. Rates outside this range may indicate over/under use of the two week wait referral route. You may wish to audit your referrals

against NICE cancer referral guidance. There is no target number for referral as this depends on practice size and demographics.


Definition: The ‘conversion rate’, i.e., the proportion of Two Week Wait referrals that are subsequently diagnosed with cancer: the number of new cancer cases treated in 2011/12 who were referred through the two week wait route divided by the total number of Two Week Wait referrals in 2011/12.


18

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

5%-7% 8%-10% 11%-13% 14%-16%

Num

ber of

pra

ctic

es

% of TWW referrals with cancer

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2010 2011 2012

% o

f TW

W re

ferral

s w

ith

canc

er

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2010 2011 2012

% o

f TW

W re

ferral

s w

ith

canc

er

The number of practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieving the best practice range of 8% to 14% has remained steady for the last three years.

Summary statistics

1Best practice = 8% to 14%, practices with less than 5 referrals excluded.

2010 2011 2012





Practices within best practice range1 1(4) 2(4) 2(4)

Practices within best practice range (%) 25.0% 50.0% 50.0%


Indicator distribution – has the profile changed?

Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— Best practice = 8% to

14%

Key

2010

2011

2012


Best practice range

Stort Valley & Villages practices achieving the best practice range over 3 years

KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0




19

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Much Hadham HC Central Surgery Church St South St Parsonage

% o

f TW

W re

ferral

s w

ith c

ance

r

2010 2011 2012 Best practice range

Two out of four practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieved the best practice range of 8% to 14% within 2012. One practice failed to achieve the best practice range for the last three years.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2009/10, 2011: 2010/11, 2012: 2011/12, activity based on less than 5 referrals are not shown.

Practice scores 2010 to 2012 Year on year rate Within best practice rangeDifference

over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82021 Much Hadham HC 11.6% q 9.6% p 15.2% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 5.6%

E82100 Central Surgery 7.5% q 6.9% p 10.6% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 3.7%

E82067 Church St 7.8% p 9.0% q 9.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 0.0%

E82074 South St 7.5% q 7.0% q 6.4% ¢ ¢ ¢ q -0.5%

E82654 Parsonage - - - -

Key



Within best practice range

Outside best practice range

Best practice 8% to 14%

Percentage of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals

Aim to be above the line and have more of your cancer cases diagnosed through the two week wait referral route. Consider doing the RCGP cancer diagnosis audit.


Definition: The proportion of new cancer cases treated who were referred through the Two Week Wait route.


21

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

20%-29% 30%-39% 40%-49% 50%-59% 60%-69%

Num

ber

of p

ract

ices

% of new cancer cases are TWW referrals

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2010 2011 2012

% o

f new

can

cer

case

s ar

e TW

W

refe

rral

s

CCG average has increased year on year and has achieved the recommended minimum of 40% for the last two years, but remains below the national average.

Summary statistics

1Recommended minimum = 40%, practices with less than 5 referrals excluded.

2010 2011 2012





Practices above recommended min.1 1(5) 1(5) 4(5)

Practices above recommended min. (%) 20.0% 20.0% 80.0%



Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— Recommended minimum

40%

Key

2010

2011

2012


Recommended minimum =

40%

Stort Valley & Villages practices achieving the recommended minimum of 40% over 3 years

KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0




22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Much Hadham HC Church St Parsonage South St Central Surgery

% o

f new

can

cer

case

s ar

e TW

W ref

erra

ls

2010 2011 2012 Recommended minimum

Four out of five practices within the Stort Valley & Villages locality achieved the recommended minimum of 40% in 2012.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2009/10, 2011: 2010/11, 2012: 2011/12, ratios based on less than 5 referrals are not shown.


over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82021 Much Hadham HC 29.6% p 35.0% p 60.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 25.0%

E82067 Church St 34.6% p 38.3% p 46.3% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 8.0%

E82654 Parsonage 42.9% q 23.1% p 40.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ q 16.9%

E82074 South St 33.3% p 39.3% p 40.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ p 0.7%

E82100 Central Surgery 30.8% p 41.4% q 38.0% ¢ ¢ ¢ p -3.4%

Key



Above recommended minimum

Below recommended minimum

Recommended minimum = 40%

Rate of emergency admissions with cancer, per 100,000 population

Aim to minimize the number of cancer patients requiring emergency admissions. Try to proactively manage cases. Consider using the RCGP Significant Event Audit

to reflect on cases.


Definition: The number of persons admitted to hospital as an inpatient or day-case via an emergency admission multiplied by 100,000 divided by the number of persons in the practice list, expressed as a rate per 100,000 persons.

Indicator source(s): Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for 1st March 2011 to 29th February 2012 was taken from the UKACR “Cancer HES” offload originally sourced from the NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care HES dataset.

24

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

300-399 400-499 500-599 1000-1250

Num

ber

of p

ract

ices

Emergency admis. per 100,000 population

300

400

500

600

700

800

2010 2011 2012

Emer

genc

y ad

mis. p

er

100,

000

popu

latio

n

CCG average varies year on year but remains below the recommended maximum of 578 and below the national average. The maximum rate for the Stort Valley & Villages locality has decreased year on year.

Summary statistics

1Recommended maximum = national average (587 in 2012), practices with less than 5 admissions excluded.

2010 2011 2012

England mean average 691 583 587

CCG mean average 519 459 502

Locality practice min 419 397 349

Locality practice max 685 530 463

Practices below recommended max.1 4(5) 5(5) 5(5)

Practices below recommended max. (%) 80.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— Recommended maximum =

587

Key

2010

2011

2012


Recommended maximum =

587

Stort Valley & Villages practices achieving recommended maximum rate of 587 over 3 years

KeyTargets achieved

3

2

1

0




25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Church St Much Hadham HC South St Central Surgery Parsonage

% o

f new

can

cer

case

s ar

e TW

W ref

erra

ls

2010 2011 2012 Recommended maximum

All five practices in the Stort Valley & Villages locality were below the recommended maximum of 587 in 2012.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2009/10, 2011: 2010/11, 2012: 2011/12, rates based on less than 5 admissions are not shown.

Practice scores 2010 to 2012 Year on year rate At or below targetDifference

over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82067 Church St 422 q 397 p 463 ¢ ¢ ¢ p 66

E82021 Much Hadham HC 419 p 488 q 424 ¢ ¢ ¢ p -64

E82074 South St 584 q 442 q 417 ¢ ¢ ¢ q -24

E82100 Central Surgery 572 q 432 q 410 ¢ ¢ ¢ q -23

E82654 Parsonage 685 q 530 q 349 ¢ ¢ ¢ q -181

Key



Below recommended maximum

Above recommended maximum

Recommended range <National average (587 in 2012)

Proportion of persons diagnosed with cancer via an emergency admission

Aim to have as few emergency presentations of cancer and more of the cases detected through managed referral routes. Consider using the RCGP significant Event Audit to reflect

on cases and using Risk Assessment Tools to help guide investigation and referral.


Definition: Proportion of persons diagnosed via an emergency, managed referral or other route.

Indicator source(s): Routes to Diagnosis project database

27

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

10%-19% 20%-29% 30%-39% 40%-49%

Num

ber

of p

ract

ices

Proportion of persons diagnosed via emergency presentation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2010 2011 2012

Prop

ortio

n of

per

sons

di

agno

sed

via

emer

genc

y pr

esen

tatio

n

CCG average remains around the maximum of the recommended range (0% to 20%).

Summary statistics

1Recommended range = 0% to 20%, practices with less than 5 admissions excluded.

2010 2011 2012

England mean average 23.7% 23.8%

CCG mean average 20.4% 20.9%

Locality practice min 14.3% 10.5%

Locality practice max 36.4% 42.9%

Practices within recommended range1 2(3) 3(5)

Practices within recommended range (%) 66.7% 60.0%



Key

CCG mean average

Locality range

— Recommended range = 0%

to 20%

Key

2010

2011


Recommended range - 0% to

20%

Stort Valley & Villages practices achieving recommended range of 0% to 20 % over 2 years

Note: 2012 data not available across all CCGs

KeyTargets achieved

2

1

0

Not shown

(low volumes)




28

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Parsonage South St Much Hadham HC Church St Central Surgery

Pro

port

ion

of p

erso

ns d

iagno

sed via

em

ergen

cy p

rese

ntat

ion

2010 2011 2012 Recommended range

Two out of three practices in the locality were within the recommended range of 0% to 20% in 2011.

Note: Published year shown, 2010 refers to 2009/10, 2011: 2010/11, 2012: 2011/12, rates based on less than 5 admissions are not shown.

Practice scores 2010 to 2012 Year on year rate At or below targetDifference

over2 years

(pp1)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

E82654 Parsonage - 42.9% - ¢ -

E82074 South St 19.1% p 21.6% - ¢ ¢ -

E82021 Much Hadham HC - 18.5% - ¢ -

E82067 Church St 22.4% q 16.9% - ¢ ¢ -

E82100 Central Surgery 16.1% q 10.5% - ¢ ¢ -

Key



Within recommended range

Outside recommended range

Recommended range = 0% to 20%

Note: rates based on less than 5 admissions are not shown.

APPENDIXIndicator definitions

30

Percentage of females aged 50–70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months

Aim to be above the national target (70%). Consider actively encouraging patients to participate in

screening programmes with letters or opportunistic prompts. GPs can be influential here.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of females aged 50 to 70 registered to the practice who were screened adequately in

the previous 36 months.

• Rate or proportion: 3-year screening coverage %: The number of females registered to the practice screened adequately in previous 36 months divided by the number of eligible females on last day of the review period.

• Method: Data was taken from the Open Exeter system without further processing. The data extracted represents the situation at April 2011, and covers the period 2009/10-2011/12.

Binomial confidence intervals are calculated using the Wilson score method1.

• Source(s): Data was extracted from the NHAIS via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.

• Interpretation: Women are invited for screening for the first time between their 50th and 53rd birthdays and every three years thereafter up to but not including their 71st birthdays. Over this 21 year window a woman who responds to each invitation should be screened 7 times. This indicator measures the fraction of this pool of eligible women who have been screened adequately, at least once, in the three years before April 2011.

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012)1APHO Technical Briefing 3: Commonly used public health statistics and their confidence intervals. Available online at: www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=48457

http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=48457

31

Percentage of females aged 25–64 attending cervical screening within target period

Aim to be above the national target (80%). Consider actively encouraging patients to participate in

screening programmes with letters or opportunistic prompts. GPs can be influential here.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of women registered at the practice screened adequately in the previous 42 months (if

aged 24-49) or 66 months (if aged 50-64)

• Rate or proportion: The overall cervical screening coverage: the number of women registered at the practice screened adequately in the previous 42 months (if aged 24-49) or 66 months (if aged 50-64) divided by the number of eligible women on last day of review period.

• Method: Data was taken from the Open Exeter system without further processing. The data extracted represents the situation at April 2011, and covers the period 2006/07Q3-2011/12.


• Source(s): Data was extracted from the NHAIS via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.

• Interpretation: Women aged 25-49 are invited for routine screening every 3 years and women aged 50-64 are invited for routine screening every 5 years. This indicator gives a combined coverage for the full age range so that it counts women aged 25-49 screened within a period of 3.5 years and women aged 50-64 within a period of 5.5 years prior to the report date and combines the counts to give the final measure.



32

Percentage of persons, 60–69, screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months


influential here.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of persons aged 60 to 69 registered to the practice who were screened adequately in

the previous 30 months.

• Rate or proportion: 2.5-year screening coverage %: The number of persons registered to the practice screened adequately in the previous 30 months divided by the number of eligible persons on last day of the review period.

• Method: Data was taken from the Open Exeter system without further processing. The data extracted represents the situation at April 2011, and covers the period 2009/10Q3-2011/12.


• Source(s): Data was extracted from the Bowel Cancer Screening System (BCCS) via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.

• Interpretation: This indicator measures the fraction of this pool of eligible people who have been screened adequately in the previous 2.5 years. Caution should be used in interpreting the data as not all CCGs had full implementation of the programme in the recorded period.



33

Two Week Wait referral ratio (indirectly age standardised)

Aim to be referring within 20% of the England average two week wait referral rate. Rates outside this range may indicate over/under use of the two week wait referral route.

You may wish to audit your referrals against NICE cancer referral guidance.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of Two Week Wait (GP urgent) referrals where cancer is suspected for patients

registered at the practice in question in 2011/12.

• Rate or proportion: The crude rate of referral: the number of Two Week Wait referrals where cancer is suspected multiplied by 100,000 divided by the list size of the practice in question.

• Method: Patient level Cancer Waiting Times (CWT) data (including patient identifiers) was downloaded from the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database by the Trent Cancer Registry. Each patient was traced to a GP Practice using the Open Exeter Batch Tracing Service. Two Week Wait Referrals were identified for patients with a date first seen on the CWT database in 2011/12. All records with a ‘Referral Priority Type’ of 3 (Two Week Wait) were counted, excluding patients referred for non-cancer breast symptoms.

Poisson confidence intervals are calculated using Byar’s approximation1.

• Source(s): Trent Cancer Registry based on Cancer Waiting Times data for England, 2011/12, held on the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database.

• Interpretation: The number of Two Week Wait referrals with a suspicion of cancer, whether or not cancer was subsequently diagnosed. This indicator may be expected to be higher in practices with an unusually high proportion of persons of 65+ years of age, due to the higher incidence of cancer at these ages.



34

Percentage of Two Week Wait referrals with cancer

Aim to have conversion rate between 8-14%. Rates outside this range may indicate over/under use of the two week wait referral route. You may wish to audit your referrals against NICE cancer referral guidance.

There is no target number for referral as this depends on practice size and demographics.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of Two Week Wait referrals treated for cancer for patients registered at the practice in question.

• Rate or proportion: The ‘conversion rate’, i.e., the proportion of Two Week Wait referrals that are subsequently diagnosed with cancer: the number of new cancer cases treated in 2011/12 who were referred through the two week wait route divided by the total number of Two Week Wait referrals in 2011/12.

• Method: Patient level Cancer Waiting Times data (including patient identifiers) was downloaded from the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database by the Trent Cancer Registry. Each patient was traced to a GP Practice using the Open Exeter Batch Tracing Service. Patients on the CWT database who had received a cancer diagnosis were identified as those patients receiving a first treatment in 2011/12, i.e. with ‘Cancer Treatment Event Type’ of 01 (First definitive treatment for a new primary cancer) or 07 (First treatment for metastatic disease following an unknown primary).

It was not possible to directly identify which referrals were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Therefore, the proportion of referrals diagnosed with cancer was calculated by dividing the number of patients receiving a first treatment in 2011/12 who were referred through the two week wait route by the number of two week wait referrals. Most of the Two Week Wait referrals first seen in 2011/12 who were diagnosed with cancer will have started treatment in 2011/12 but a small number will have started treatment in 2011/12 and a small number of patients who started treatment in 2011/12 will have been first seen in 2010/11. For a very small number of practices, this may result in a ‘conversion rate’ of more than 100% being calculated.



• Interpretation: The number of Two Week Wait referrals with a suspicion of cancer, in which cancer was subsequently diagnosed.

The proportion is the ‘conversion rate’ for the practice. This varies by cancer type and so will depend on the case-mix of cancers diagnosed in persons registered at the practice. Either an unusually high or an unusually low conversion rate may merit further investigation.



35

Percentage of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals

Aim to be above the line and have more of your cancer cases diagnosed through the two week wait referral route. Consider doing the RCGP cancer diagnosis audit.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of patients registered at the practice who have a date of first treatment in 2011/12 on

the cancer waiting times system.

• Rate or proportion: The proportion of new cancer cases treated who were referred through the Two Week Wait route. This is calculated as the number of persons referred as a Two Week Wait referral who were subsequently diagnosed with cancer divided by the total number of patients registered at the practice who have a date of first treatment in 2011/12 on the cancer waiting times system.

• Method: Patient level Cancer Waiting Times data (including patient identifiers) was downloaded from the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database by the Trent Cancer Registry. Each patient was traced to a GP Practice using the Open Exeter Batch Tracing Service.



• Interpretation: This indicator shows the proportion of cancers that were first diagnosed following a two week wait referral. This varies by cancer type and so will depend on the case-mix of cancers diagnosed in persons registered at the practice.



36

Rate of emergency admissions with cancer, per 100,000 population

Aim to minimize the number of cancer patients requiring emergency admissions. Try to proactively manage cases. Consider using the RCGP Significant Event Audit to reflect on

cases.

Indicator definition• Number: The number of persons admitted to hospital as an inpatient or day-case via an emergency

admission, with a diagnostic code that includes cancer.

• Rate or proportion: The number of persons admitted to hospital as an inpatient or day-case via an emergency admission multiplied by 100,000 divided by the number of persons in the practice list, expressed as a rate per 100,000 persons.

• Method: All emergency admissions with an invasive, in-situ, uncertain or unknown behaviour, or benign brain cancer (ICD-10 C00-C97, D00-D09, D33, and D37-48) present in any of the first three diagnostic fields were extracted from the inpatient HES database.

• Source(s): Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for 1st March 2011 to 29th February 2012 was taken from the UKACR “Cancer HES” offload originally sourced from the NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care HES dataset.

• Interpretation: The number and crude rate per 100,000 persons of emergency in-patient or day-case admissions, sourced from HES data, with a diagnosis that includes cancer. These may occur at any stage of the cancer pathway and will include persons diagnosed with cancer in prior years. This indicator may be expected to be higher in practices with an unusually high fraction of persons of 65+ years of age, due to the higher incidence of cancer at these ages.

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012)

37

Aim to have as few emergency presentations of cancer and more of the cases detected through managed

referral routes. Consider using the RCGP significant Event Audit to reflect on cases and using

Risk Assessment Tools to help guide investigation and referral.

Indicator definition• Number: Number of persons diagnosed via an emergency route, as defined by the Routes to Diagnosis project methodology1

• Rate or proportion: Number of persons diagnosed via an emergency route divided by the number of persons with any categorised route to diagnosis.

• Method: The data for the pool of patients diagnosed with cancer (ICD-10 C00-C97 excluding C44) in 2008 cancer registry records was examined. These were linked at a patient level to the Routes to Diagnosis

In brief, the Routes to Diagnosis project method was that data sources of Screening, Inpatient HES, Outpatient HES, and Cancer Waiting Times were used to trace the history of each patient diagnosed with cancer in the year 2008. Patient histories in the datasets above prior to diagnosis were used to categorise the route that the patient took to arrive at the point of diagnosis.

Eight main routes were defined in the Routes to Diagnosis project, these are aggregated into three broad routes in these Practice Profiles – Emergency Presentation, Managed Presentation, and Other Presentation. Emergency presentations are those initiated by an emergency event of some type, Managed Presentations consist of those following a routine or Two week Wait referral from a GP, Other Presentations are those via screening, death certificate only, Inpatient Elective, Other outpatients, and Unknown. See the Routes to Diagnosis Project for further information1.


• Source(s): Routes to Diagnosis project database.

• Interpretation: The number of persons who present as an emergency. The rate is the estimated fraction of all presentations that are emergencies, though patients who were diagnosed with multiple independent cancers in the same year were excluded.

Aggregated data may give slightly different totals for England than previously published as it applies only to those patients who can be traced to a practice database.

Proportion of persons diagnosed with cancer via an emergency admission

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012)1Routes to Diagnosis methodology, available online at: http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/routes_to_diagnosis.aspx2APHO Technical Briefing 3: Commonly used public health statistics and their confidence intervals. Available online at: www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=48457

http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/routes_to_diagnosis.aspx


APPENDIXDemographic definitions

39

Practice Population aged 65+

Indicator definition• Number: The number of persons registered at the practice aged 65+.

• Rate or proportion: The percentage of persons registered at the practice aged 65+, defined by the number of persons registered at the practice divided by the list size of the practice.

• Method: Data is taken from the Attribution Dataset, extracted April 2011. The number of persons aged 65+ is the sum across the population in the 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, and 85+ age-bands. The fraction of the practice population aged 65+ is calculated by dividing the number aged 65+ by the list size of the practice sourced from the 2011/12 QOF data.


• Interpretation: The percentage of the population over the age of 65 may be expected to have a significant effect on the burden of cancer in the practice population. The percentage of the population is taken as at April 2011 and will not reflect changes since then.

• Source(s): Data sourced from the Attribution Dataset provided by the South East Public Health Observatory.

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012) 1APHO Technical Briefing 3: Commonly used public health statistics and their confidence intervals. Available online at: www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=48457


40

Socio-economic deprivation

Indicator definition• Number: The estimated quintile of deprivation of the practice.

• Rate or proportion: The estimated income domain score for the practice, which is the percentage of the practice list that is income deprived1.

• Method: Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores for each deprivation domain have been estimated for each practice by the English Public Health Observatories using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010 by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)2. Briefly, the overall socio-economic deprivation of the practice is estimated by averaging the socio-economic deprivation of each person on the practice list based on their LSOA of residence. Practices were ranked nationally by Income Domain score and allocated into equal population quintiles (1 being coded as the most affluent quintile, and 5 as the most deprived quintile).


• Interpretation: Several common cancers have a known dependence on the socio-economic status of the population. A more deprived population may be expected to have a higher incidence rate of lung cancer but lower incidence rates of prostate and breast cancer.

• Source(s): Data provide by the English Public Health Observatories.

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012) 1The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Communities and Local Government. Available online at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices20102GP practice IMD 2007 – Calculation Notes, South East Public Health Observatory, 2010. 3APHO Technical Briefing 3: Commonly used public health statistics and their confidence intervals. Available online at: www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=48457

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010


41

New cancer cases

Indicator definition• Number: The number of persons diagnosed with any invasive cancer excluding non-melanoma skin cancer

(ICD-10 C00-C97, excluding C44) in 2010

• Rate or proportion: The crude incidence rate per 100,000 persons: the number of new cases diagnosed multiplied by 100,000 divided by the practice list size.

• Method: All invasive cancers diagnosed in 2010 registered by cancer registries and present in the 2010 Office of National Statistics analysis dataset were included. These patients were matched to a GP surgery by tracing them by NHS number to find their current and previous practice. Persons were allocated to their practice at their time of diagnosis. If this was not possible (for example, due to the patient having moved practice more than once in the time between diagnosis and trace) they were not included. The resultant total number of cancer diagnoses across England is 93% of the Office of National Statistics total number of cases for the country.

• Source(s): Office of National Statistics 2010. Each patient was traced to a GP Practice using the NHS Personal Demographics Service.

• Interpretation: This indicator gives the number of new cases and incidence rate of invasive cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the practice population, as estimated from cancer registry data for calendar year 2010. Cancer registry data includes persons diagnosed solely through their death certificate or who died shortly after an emergency presentation in secondary care, so may be larger than number of persons known to the practice. However, as 7% of cases could not be traced to a specific practice and are not included numbers at an individual practice may be undercounted by approximately this much. Numbers of cases may also fluctuate year to year meaning that caution should be used in comparing this indicator to other indicators such as the number of new cancer cases treated in 2011/12 taken from the Cancer Waiting Times database.

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012)

42

Cancer deaths

Indicator definition• Number: The number of deaths with an underlying cause of death which is any invasive cancer (ICD-10 C00-

C97) in 2011/12.

• Rate or proportion: The crude mortality rate per 100,000 persons: the number of deaths due to invasive cancer multiplied by 100,000 divided by the practice list size.

• Method: Records of all deaths in England occurring in 2011/12 were downloaded from the Primary Care Mortality Database. These were filtered on the Underlying Cause of Death by ICD-10 code to exclude all deaths not due to invasive cancer (ICD-10 C00-C97)) and aggregated to GP Practices using the built-in practice codes.


• Source(s): The Primary Care Mortality Database, which is a collaborative project between the Office of National Statistics and the Information Centre.

• Interpretation: This indicator gives the number of cancer deaths and crude mortality rate in the practice. Numbers of cases may fluctuate year to year meaning that caution should be used in comparing this indicator to other indicators such as the number of new cancer cases in 2010.



43

Prevalent cancer cases

Indicator definition• Number: The number of persons registered on the practice cancer register.

• Rate or proportion: The proportion of persons on the practice cancer register: the number of persons on the practice cancer register divided by the practice list size.

• Method: Data is taken from the QOF dataset without further processing.


• Source(s): Data sourced from the cancer prevalence field of the QOF 2011/12 data2.

• Interpretation: The prevalence data is taken from QOF data for 11/12, and originally sourced from each practice’s cancer register. Recording methodology varies by practice and may underestimate the true cancer prevalence.

Source: NCAT General Practice Profiles for cancer: meta-data for profile indicators (Version 3.0, December 2012)1APHO Technical Briefing 3: Commonly used public health statistics and their confidence intervals. Available online at: www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=48457 22011/12 QOF data. Available online at: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/002_Audits/QOF_2011-12/Practice_Tables/QOF1112_Pracs_Prevalence.xls


http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/002_Audits/QOF_2011-12/Practice_Tables/QOF1112_Pracs_Prevalence.xls

Documents

Cunliffeanalytics Cancer indicator trend analysis Stort Valley & Villages locality Summary of practice level cancer indicators 2010 to 2012 Version 2.1