|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
26 Feb 2004 : Column 569Wcontinued
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposed review of the first wave of NHS foundation trusts; when the review will (a) begin and (b) end; what its terms of reference will be; what resources will be allocated to the review; whether the (i) terms of reference and (ii) report produced will be made public; whether parliamentary time will be set aside to debate the review and its outcome; and whether the review will include a consultation process. 
Mr. Hutton: Details of the review of national health service foundation trusts will be announced before the first NHS foundation trusts are authorised by the Independent Regulator of NHS foundation trusts.
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his statement of 7 January 2003, Official Report, column 279, which trusts received an increased star rating as a result of the recalculations; 
(3) which individual NHS trust ratings the Secretary of State queried during consideration of the 2002 star ratings; and what the reasons were in each case; 
(4) on which 3-star NHS trusts at risk of losing a star Ministers raised queries during consideration of the 2002 star ratings; 
(5) how many recalculations of the 2002 NHS trust star ratings took place (a) before and (b) after 15 to 16 July 2002; and what the reasons were for each recalculation; 
(6) which criteria in the 2002 NHS trust star ratings were changed when they were recalculated on 15 to 16 July 2002; 
(7) for what reasons no trust lost a star rating following the recalculation of the 2002 star rating on 15 to 16 July 2002. 
Mr. Hutton: The first calculation of provisional 2002 national health service trust performance ratings to be based on a full data set took place on 9 July 2002. Calculations were then checked and, where necessary, refined on a regular basis through to the publication on 24 July 2002, in order to correct any data errors and ensure the results represented an accurate reflection of NHS performance.
The specific change to the criteria used to calculate provisional performance ratings between 15 and 16 July 2002 was the removal of two performance indicators, covering access to catering facilities and information management and technology, which had been proposed as part of the rating system. The indicators were
26 Feb 2004 : Column 570W
removed following a significant number of concerns raised by NHS trusts over the quality of their construction and the data that would have to be used.
The star ratings system uses the relative position of trusts against a wide range of performance indicators to help distinguish between three, two and one star ratings. So, in principle, a trust's position could be improved or worsened by changes to the indicator scores of other trusts. No trust's provisional rating dropped on 15 to 16 July because other indicator data did not change significantly at that time. However, by the time the ratings were published on 24 July 2002, the removal of these two indicators had contributed to a lower rating for some trusts, aided by the relative position of other trusts having improved as data on other indicators changed. If these indicators had remained part of the 2002 performance ratings, 11 acute NHS trusts would have received a different rating at the time of publication: seven trusts would have had a lower rating; four trusts would have had a higher rating.
Overall, as a consequence of the removal of the two indicators and a number of other data corrections and refinements, there were 23 acute and specialist NHS trusts that had an increased performance rating between the 12 July 2002 calculation of provisional ratings and their final rating for that year. The 23 trusts which increased from their provisional rating were:
The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), raised queries about the provisional rating of nine acute NHS trusts, in the run-up to publication, to satisfy himself that ratings to be awarded were based on robust evidence and represented an accurate reflection of NHS performance. The nine acute trusts whose provisional rating the then Secretary of State queried are listed. Those marked with an asterisk are trusts which had been three-star in the 2001 performance ratings.
26 Feb 2004 : Column 571W
Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of registrations were made via each procedure available for individuals to register themselves on the organ donor register in the last year for which figures are available. 
|Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency||37|
|Family Health Services Authorities||28|
|Organ Donor Leaflet||3|
|Boots Advantage Card||14|
Analysis on 15 January 2004
Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-heartbeating organ donations there were in each of the past three years; and in how many cases the deceased was on the donor register. 
|NHB donors||Numberon ODR||Percentageon ODR|
26 Feb 2004 : Column 572W
|Number added (million)|
Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days on average his Department took in Session 200203 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: The average time take to answer an ordinary written parliamentary question in the 200203 session was 12 working days. The greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was 127 working days.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|