Previous Section Index Home Page

14 Jan 2009 : Column 815W—continued


More details on the projections may be found in the latest published bulletin ‘Prison Population Projections 2008-2015’, Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 18 September 2008. This is available at the following webpage:

Probation Service for England and Wales

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the merits of converting probation boards into probation trusts; what will happen to a probation board if it fails to convert into a probation trust within the required timescale; and if he will make a statement. [246926]

Mr. Hanson: The advantages of the creation of probation trusts were discussed through public consultation in 2005, during the passage of the Offender Management Act in 2007 and most recently in the analysis of probation services conducted by KPMG on behalf of the NOMS agency. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) on 20 November 2008, Official Report, column 797W. Probation trusts will be contracted to provide services which reflect local needs and which have a clear focus on the achievement of outcomes. They will deliver services in partnership with providers from the private or voluntary and community sector based on the application of ‘best value’ principles and processes.

From April 2010, probation services will be provided by trusts delivering to contract or other providers following competition. We are currently developing the policy on what will happen to those boards who fail to become trusts, further details will be available by spring 2009.

Health

British Dental Association

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings Ministers in his Department
14 Jan 2009 : Column 816W
have held with (a) the British Dental Association and (b) other dental organisations in the last 12 months. [246624]

Ann Keen: I have met formally twice with representatives of the British Dental Association, and once with the Chair and Chair Elect of the National Conference of Local Dental Committees over the past 12 months.

Cancer: Health Services

Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made towards establishing a National Cancer Intelligence Network; and what priorities for (a) routine analyses at a national level and (b) research have been determined. [247100]

Ann Keen: The National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) was launched in June 2008. Its aim is to promote efficient and effective data collection at each stage of the cancer journey, and to co-ordinate the analysis and publication of comparative national statistics on diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for all types of cancer.

The core objectives of the NCIN are:

Chapter 8 of the first annual report of the Cancer Reform Strategy, ‘Cancer Reform Strategy: Maintaining momentum, building for the future—first annual report’, published on 1 December 2008, contains information about the NCIN's progress and priorities. This document has already been placed in the Library.

Cancer: Screening

Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress National Health Service cancer screening programmes have made towards encouraging the sharing of best practice in improving accessibility for all groups. [247103]

Ann Keen: National health service (NHS) cancer screening programmes have funded several projects around improving access to cancer screening. These include a digital video disc (DVD) on bowel cancer screening in collaboration with the South Asian Health Foundation and a DVD in sign language. Promotional materials for the bowel cancer screening programme are available on the NHS cancer screening programme's website for local services to rework as appropriate for their local populations. NHS cancer screening programmes have also produced a guidance document, ‘Equal Access to Breast and Cervical Screening for Disabled Women’, which is available on their website at:

A copy has been placed in the Library.


14 Jan 2009 : Column 817W

NHS cancer screening programmes are represented on the National Cancer Equality Initiative (NCEI) Advisory Group. The NCEI was set up as part of the implementation of the Cancer Reform Strategy, published in December 2007 (a copy of which has already been placed in the Library), to take forward a series of actions to reduce inequalities in cancer care. The NCEI is initially focusing on optimising data collection to enhance our understanding of the inequalities that exist; promoting research to fill gaps in the evidence; and spreading and sustaining good practice in NHS organisations. The NCEI has undertaken a good practice survey to identify current projects aiming to reduce inequalities in cancer care, including cancer screening. The principles behind undertaking robust projects to reduce cancer inequalities, including examples from the survey, will be issued to the NHS later this year.

Cervical Cancer: Screening

Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to move to an activity-based system for funding cervical cancer screening services. [247104]


14 Jan 2009 : Column 818W

Ann Keen: The decision has been taken to explore having a tariff for cervical screening, along with breast and bowel screening, to incentivise services to encourage higher coverage. The Department is working closely with national health service cancer screening programmes on a scoping exercise to inform this work.

Childbirth

Mr. Truswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mothers had babies delivered at NHS hospitals in each district of the Yorkshire and Humberside strategic health authority area in each of the last five years. [245669]

Ann Keen: The information requested is not held in the format required.

However, information on total delivery episodes within Yorkshire and the Humber strategic health authority area (SHA), broken down by national health service trust, 2002-03 to 2006-07 is shown in the following table:

NHS provider 2006-07 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03

Airedale NHS Trust

2,394

2,285

2,269

2,256

2,104

Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

2,571

2,399

2,317

2,295

2,164

Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

5,746

5,889

5,490

5,305

5,248

Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust

5,441

5,436

5,417

5,372

4,992

Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

5,022

4,937

4,815

4,617

4,409

Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

1,713

1,678

1,641

1,576

1,592

Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

5,384

5,072

5,064

4,881

4,683

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

8,786

8,468

8,223

7,863

7,103

Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

6,189

6,238

6,081

6,053

5,605

Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

4,398

4,379

4,156

3,939

3,787

The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust

2,685

2,610

2,557

2,529

2,474

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

6,530

6,365

6,354

6,163

5,805

York Hospitals NHS Trust

3,242

3,032

3,127

2,865

2,820

Notes: The NHS Information Centre reports that the figures provided for Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care NHS Trust have been redacted from the table because they appear to be significantly lower than reported. The NHS Information Centre and the Yorkshire and Humber SHA have been asked to investigate this.
Small numbers: To protect patient confidentiality, trusts with less than five deliveries have been removed. Ungrossed data: Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).
Data quality: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are compiled from data sent by more than 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. Data is also received from a number of independent sector organisations for activity commissioned by the English NHS. The NHS Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data via HES processes. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain. Assessing growth through time: HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. The quality and coverage of the data have improved over time. These improvements in information submitted by the NHS have been particularly marked in the earlier years and need to be borne in mind when analysing time series. Some of the increase in figures for later years (particularly 2006-07 onwards) may be due to the improvement in the coverage of independent sector activity. Changes in NHS practice also need to be borne in mind when analysing time series. For example, a number of procedures may now be undertaken in outpatient settings and may no longer be accounted for in the HES data. This may account for any reductions in activity over time.
Coverage and data quality: The maternity tail data coverage is not as complete as the rest of HES data. There are a number of reasons for the coverage and data quality issues such as:
trusts submitting a significantly higher number of delivery episodes compared to birth episodes;
trusts failing to submit data on the number of birth episodes where they record a high number of delivery episodes;
trusts failing to submit delivery—the reason for this is that approximately 20 trusts have a standalone maternity system which is not linked to the Patient Administration System;
trusts identifying a high number of maternity beds available, but not recording any information about deliveries or births;
trusts identifying that they have no maternity beds available, but recording a high number of birth and delivery episodes; and
some trusts have space in their maternity system to record nine birth tails, whereas other systems have space for 18. As deliveries, miscarriages and abortions are all recorded in the birth tail, there are cases where nine tails is not enough to record all of the relevant data . Between 2001-02 and 2005-06, coverage of hospital deliveries was 72.6 per cent. on average, whereas that of home deliveries was 13.6 per cent. on average. The incomplete coverage problem is significantly compounded by the data quality issues outlined above.
Finished Consultant Delivery Episode (FCE): A finished consultant episode (FCE) is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. FCEs are counted against the year in which the FCE finishes.
Maternity events taking place in either NHS hospitals or in non-NHS hospitals funded by the NHS will be recorded as ordinary “Delivery” episodes.
“Other Delivery events” are delivery events other than those resulting in delivery or birth episodes under NHS funding or in any other facility supplied under a service agreement with the NHS.
Source:
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), the NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

Mr. Truswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mothers had babies delivered at (a) Leeds General Infirmary and (b) St. James's Hospital in each month of the last two years. [245670]


14 Jan 2009 : Column 819W

Ann Keen: The information is not available in the format requested. The following table shows the total
14 Jan 2009 : Column 820W
deliveries(1) for Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust broken down by month the episode ended(2).

2006-07 2005-06

Total deliveries

8,786

8,468

April

711

700

May

748

731

June

731

662

July

763

788

August

786

668

September

746

707

October

759

736

November

705

692

December

753

740

January

706

667

February

635

641

March

743

736

Notes:
(1)
Finished Consultant Delivery Episode
(FCE): A FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. FCEs are counted against the year in which the FCE finishes. We have provided a count of total deliveries measured by delivery episode and other delivery event:
maternity events taking place in either national health service (NHS) hospitals or in non-NHS hospitals funded by the NHS will be recorded as ordinary “Delivery”.
“other Delivery events” are delivery events other than those resulting in delivery or birth episodes under NHS funding or in any other facility supplied under a service agreement with the NHS.
Coverage and data quality
: the maternity tail data coverage is not as complete as the rest of HES data. There are a number of reasons for the coverage and data quality issues such as:
trusts submitting a significantly higher number of delivery episodes compared to birth episodes
trusts failing to submit data on the number of birth episodes where they record a high number of delivery episodes
trusts failing to submit delivery—the reason for this is that approximately 20 trusts have a standalone maternity system which is not linked to the Patient Administration System
trusts identifying a high number of maternity beds available, but not recording any information about deliveries or births
trusts identifying that they have no maternity beds available, but recording a high number of birth and delivery episodes
some trusts have space in their maternity system to record nine birth tails, whereas other systems have space for 18. As deliveries, miscarriages and abortions are all recorded in the birth tail, there are cases where nine tails is not enough to record all of the relevant data.
Between 2001-02 and 2005-06, coverage of hospital deliveries was 72.6 per cent. on average, whereas that of home deliveries was 13.6 per cent. on average. The incomplete coverage problem is significantly compounded by the data quality issues outlined above.
(2)
Date episode ended
—This field contains the date on which a patient left the care of a particular consultant, for one of the following reasons: discharged from hospital (includes transfers) or moved to the care of another consultant.
A null entry either indicates that the episode was unfinished at the end of the data year, or the date was unknown.
Ungrossed data
—Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in the data,
i.e.
the data are ungrossed.
Data quality
—HES are compiled from data sent by over 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. Data is also received from a number of independent sector organisations for activity commissioned by the English NHS. The Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data via HES processes. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain.
Quality of care
—Data derived from HES cannot be used in isolation to evaluate the quality of care provided by NHS trusts or clinical teams. There are many factors that can affect the outcome of treatment and it is beyond the scope of HES to adequately record and reflect all of these.
HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. The quality and coverage of the data have improved over time. These improvements in information submitted by the NHS have been particularly marked in the earlier years and need to be borne in mind when analysing time series. Some of the increase in figures for later years (particularly 2006-07 onwards) may be due to the improvement in the coverage of independent sector activity. Changes in NHS practice also need to be borne in mind when analysing time series. For example, a number of procedures may now be undertaken in outpatient settings and may no longer be accounted for in the HES data. This may account for any reductions in activity over time.
Source:
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The Information Centre for health and social care
.

Next Section Index Home Page