Posts Tagged ‘Trust’

I have a puzzle for you: thousands of patients are apparently missing from the English waiting list. I don’t know where they are (though I’ll have a go at guessing), and I’m hoping some of you can help me.

Here’s the problem.

In principle, we should be able to start with, say, the 4-5 week waiters from the end-of-January waiting list, take away those patients who were admitted and non-admitted from the cohort during February, and (because February was exactly 4 weeks long) end up with an estimate of the 8-9 week waiters on the end-of-February waiting list.

That method would miss any patients who were removed without being seen or treated (for instance ‘validated’ patients who had been reported on the January waiting list in error), but that error should all be in one direction: to make the reported February figure smaller than our estimate. Patients cannot appear on the waiting list with several weeks on the clock out of thin air, can they? So our estimate, minus the reported end-of-February list, should always produce an anomaly that is positive and which reflects validation during February.

Sounds great. But if you actually do the sums you come across some oddities. Several, in fact, as you can see from the supposedly-impossible negative values in the chart below.

1) Missing very-short waiters

The first oddity is for the very shortest waiters. If you take the number of patients across England who have waited 1-2 weeks at the end of January, and knock off February’s admitted and non-admitted patients, then the expected number of 5-6 week waiters at the end of February should be no more than about 177,720. But in fact some 179,087 were reported in the end-of-February waiting list data: more than a thousand too many. That’s the small negative anomaly at 5-6 weeks in the chart above. A thousand-odd patients have appeared in the February figures out of thin air. Where did they come from?

They weren’t new referrals being treated immediately (they could only affect February’s 4-5 week cohort, which should really be part of this oddity as well). So they must only have appeared on the waiting list a week after referral. This, as far as I am aware, is quite common, because paper referrals are often graded for urgency by the consultant before being recorded on PAS, and this process can take as long as a week or two. So if that’s the explanation then that would explain the first oddity.

2) Missing 9-week waiters

The second oddity crops up at 8-10 weeks, and this is larger and more mysterious. At the end of January there were 233,003 patients on the waiting list who had waited 4-6 weeks since referral. After deducting the relevant admitted and non-admitted patients, you are left with an upper limit for 8-10 week waiters at the end of February of about 129,045. But in fact the reported figures show there were 144,434: some 15,389 too many, and causing the large negative anomaly in the chart. That’s a lot of patients suddenly appearing in the February figures. Where did they come from?

I don’t know the answer to this one, which is why I’m asking. But my guess is that this has something to do with cancer pathways. Could it be that some cancer patients are not being reported in the incomplete pathways statistics, but are being reported in the admitted and non-admitted figures? The NHS Standard Contract specifies that cancer patients should be treated within 62 days of referral, which is 9 weeks and coincides nearly enough with this anomaly. If large numbers of cancer patients are not being recorded in hospitals’ mainstream computer systems, which this explanation implies, then that in itself could be worrying because parallel and duplicate administrative systems can lead to patients getting lost.

3) Missing 17-week waiters

The third oddity is around 18 week waits. It isn’t large enough to appear as a negative anomaly in the national statistics charted above (though it does show as a step-change), but if you drill down to Trust level it does produce a negative anomaly for some individual Trusts. Because the cohort-tracking sums are inexact, and because quite a few Trusts crop up in this analysis, I am not going to name Trusts individually but instead will look at the overall pattern.

At some Trusts, the reported number of patients waiting 17-18 weeks at the end of February is higher than you would expect (a negative anomaly at Trust level), and they have no negative anomaly for 18-19 week waiters. In most cases the negative anomaly is small (or a small percentage). But in a handful of Trusts it does look significant; in other words significantly more patients are being reported just within the 18-week target than you would expect.

Again I don’t know what the explanation is, but my guess is that some Trusts (or some parts of some Trusts) might be applying clock pauses to their waiting list figures. That is strictly forbidden; the guidance says (emphasis in original):

“Clock pauses may be applied to incomplete/open pathways locally – to aid good waiting list management and to ensure patients are treated in order of clinical priority – however, adjustments must not be applied to either non-admitted or incomplete pathways RTT data reported in monthly RTT returns to the Department of Health.“

4) Disappearing 18-week breaches

The final oddity is just above the 18-week mark, and this anomaly goes in the opposite direction. From 18-22 weeks, the end-of-February waiting list is around half the expected size, so the anomaly is much more positive than expected.

My guess is that this is the result of waiting list validation being targeted at over-18-week waiters so that they don’t score against the admitted and non-admitted standards. This is a largely redundant tactic now that the main focus of the penalties, from April, is on incomplete pathways; Trusts today would be better advised to focus their validation efforts on patients approaching 18 weeks, rather than those who have already breached.

So there are four oddities in the data. If you can help explain any of them, or at least explain what is happening where you work, then do leave a comment below this post on the HSJ website (either anonymously or otherwise), or contact me in confidence by email or publicly on Twitter.

If you want to dive into the figures, you can download a spreadsheet that contains all the detailed calculations here.

POSTSCRIPT

A few more suggestions that have been put to me since I posted this:

Some missing waiters around the nine-week mark could be Choose & Book patients, who were told by C&B that no appointments were available and therefore raised an ASI (Appointment Slot Issue). Those patients might then be managed on paper by the hospital until their slot is arranged, which might take several weeks, during which they might not be reported as incomplete pathways. (Incidentally, this is a wasteful and risky administrative process, and the patient usually ends up in a similarly-dated slot to the one they would have had if C&B polling ranges had simply been extended.)

Some missing patients close to the 18-week mark at Trust level (though not at national level) are tertiary referrals. These arrive at the tertiary centre with time already on the clock (although there is now the option for the referring provider to take the ‘hit’ on any breaches caused by delays at their end: http://transparency.dh.gov.uk/files/2012/06/RTT-Reporting-patients-who-transfer-between-NHS-Trusts.pdf).

Here is a comment left at the HSJ website:

Anonymous | 2-May-2013 11:13 am

A few points come to mind in response to this article:
- As a general comment, early this (calendar) year, the impending financial penalties for >52 week waiters resulted in a flurry of activity to clear up waiting lists and address data quality issues. This almost certainly has created lots of apparent anomalies that are in fact data quality corrections.
- The >52 week penalties are contained in the standard NHS contract template – you will find that some CCGs have chosen not to include them in the final versions used for their providers. I think this may happen in situations where the provider is on a block contract. This is probably not a major factor though.
- My experience suggests that providers will not stop validating 18 week breaches against the clock stop targets – I am not sure any board or exec would simply not be worried about breaches that aren’t really breaches, financial penalty or not. It is still a core operational standard (as defined by the NTDA) so will still create a fuss if not achieved.
- as regards the missing very short waiters, grading for urgency by clinicans has definitley been known to take longer than 2 weeks. A less than one percent discrepancy could easily be explained by late grading and, probably more commonly, hospitals without single points of referral receipt not getting things on the system ina timely fashion e.g. letters going directly to med secs who sit on them for too long. If you know the patient won’t be seen for >10 weeks, why bother getting them on the system – this is the attitude in some cases at least!

The genuine, externally-driven demand for healthcare is remarkably stable. But inside the NHS it doesn’t feel like that; managers are constantly responding to new pressures.

Sometimes it is a genuine and sudden spike in demand: an outbreak of flu for instance. Sometimes demand steps-up because of something the NHS has done (like start a new screening programme), which should be predictable.

But most of the time, in most services, nothing really changes very much. And yet the fire-fighting continues.

Why?

Let’s try a few scenarios and see if any of them sound familiar:

Scenario 1: The responsive clinic

The consultants’ clinic sessions haven’t changed in years. Nor have the clinic templates. The Choose & Book ‘polling ranges’ were set years ago to meet 18 weeks, and haven’t changed since.

Every now and again, staff notice that all the clinic slots have filled up so there’s nothing available on Choose & Book. They beg a willing consultant to run an extra clinic in 2-3 weeks time, and it fills up quickly with new Choose & Book patients. That takes the immediate pressure off, but patients are still booking right up to the end of the polling range.

Scenario 2: The helpful orthopods

Waiting times are a long-standing problem for orthopaedic inpatients, but the orthopods are usually quite flexible and manage to keep on top of it. Whenever the TCIs for the coming month are looking set to breach, the consultants manage to run some Saturday morning lists and avoid the crisis.

It costs an arm and a leg in overtime and bank staff, and the consultants are paid handsomely for the extra sessions, but it keeps a lid on it.

Scenario 3: The pragmatic plan

The operational managers know how many consultants they’ve got, how many sessions they’ve got, and how many cases they do in a session. So they multiply all that up, then that’s their plan for next year. Yes, some services are struggling with 18 weeks, but there’s no point in promising the commissioners extra activity when you don’t have the resources.

The solution

All those scenarios have one thing in common: baseline capacity is not based on demand.

There will always be some form of mismatch between capacity and demand, because capacity comes in chunks (consultants, sessions, beds) and demand is more continuous. Over time, the gap between capacity and demand will drift, until after a few years it becomes quite pronounced.

The result is that some elective services have a steadily growing waiting list (and periodic waiting times crises, tackled with expensive ‘extra’ sessions, as they bump along under the target). Meanwhile, other elective services have a steadily shrinking waiting list and either run out of patients or (more likely) slacken off their activity by running short sessions.

The solution, obvious as it may sound, is to align baseline capacity with recurring demand. Then those expensive ‘extra’ sessions are only needed for genuine non-recurring work, and you can pull resources out of any areas that are quietly enjoying a bit of slack.

It isn’t rocket science, but it is fiddly because you have to take a lot of things into account. It’s best to let a professional model like Gooroo Planner take care of it all for you.

You have, I hope, just signed-off with commissioners your plans for 2013/14. This is the perfect time to cross-check them. You’re going to need an internal plan you can believe in, based on what you really think is going to happen to demand, taking account of the knock-ons from outpatients to electives, and broken down week by week so you can meet your objectives all the time and not just at year-end.

Get in touch on info@nhsgooroo.co.uk and we’ll be happy to drop in and show you more. If you decide to go ahead, we can cross-check your plans as part of the initial induction programme.

Here is the local picture on 18 week waits, fully updated with the December 2012 RTT waiting times data just released by the Department of Health for England. For an overview of referral-to-treatment waiting times in England see the parallel post here.

If you want to pick a Trust, independent sector provider, or PCT, and get a full analysis of the pressures in any specialty, then all the detail is here.

Where are the very-long waiters?

The days of one-year-waiters are (I hope) numbered now, because from April providers will be penalised £5,000 per patient per month for every one-year-waiter they report on their waiting lists.

The following map compares one-year waits, 18-week waits, and total waits, with the values a year before. You can click the Trust name to get a full analysis.

Other maps you might find useful:
All specialties together, by NHS/IS provider (same as map above)
Each specialty separately, by NHS/IS provider
All specialties together, by PCT (i.e. population basis)
Each specialty separately, by PCT

92 per cent of the waiting list within 18 weeks

The most meaningful (and, from April, the main contractual) waiting time measure is that 92 per cent of the waiting list (‘incomplete pathways’) must be within 18 weeks. So this map series shows how long 92 per cent of the waiting list has actually waited.

Each specialty separately, by NHS/IS provider
Each specialty separately, by PCT (population basis)

The clock pause map has been retired. Incomplete pathways are now the principal measure, and clock pauses are not applied to incomplete pathway waiting times.

Here is the local picture on 18 week waits, fully updated with the September 2012 RTT waiting times data just released by the Department of Health for England.

If you want to pick a Trust, independent sector provider, or PCT, and get a full analysis of the pressures in any specialty, then all the detail is here: Gooroo reports

Where are the very-long waiters?

In September the number of over-one-year waiters fell to 1,613, from 20,097 a year earlier. That’s a fantastic achievement, but there are still 1,613 very-long-waiters on the books who really shouldn’t be there. This map shows where they are, along with other waiting time statistics and year-on-year comparisons:

Other maps you might find useful:
All specialties together, by NHS/IS provider (same as map above)
Each specialty separately, by NHS/IS provider
All specialties together, by PCT (i.e. population basis)
Each specialty separately, by PCT

The 92 per cent target

The most meaningful of the 18 week targets is that 92 per cent of the waiting list (‘incomplete pathways’) must be within 18 weeks. So this map series shows how long 92 per cent of the waiting list has actually waited.

All specialties together, by NHS/IS provider (same as map above)
Each specialty separately, by NHS/IS provider
All specialties together, by PCT (i.e. population basis)
Each specialty separately, by PCT

Where are the most ‘clock pauses’?

This map shows where the greatest amount of clock-pausing is happening, measured by the difference between 90th centile adjusted and unadjusted waiting times.

Why this focus on clock pauses? Because the best way to tackle long waits in the NHS is to address the two root causes: waiting lists that are too big, and sub-optimal patient scheduling. If services come to rely on clock pauses to achieve their targets month after month, then that deflects attention from those root causes. If a service gets to the point where it is over- or mis-using clock pauses then that is unfair to patients, and likely to end in crisis when the position becomes unsustainable. So the intention of this focus on clock pauses is to shine light on them so that they are not over-used, and the root causes of long waits are addressed instead.

Clock pauses are applied by the provider, so here is a map showing where clock pauses have the greatest effect at Trust-specialty level:

Here is the local picture on 18 week waits, fully updated with the August 2012 RTT waiting times data just released by the Department of Health for England.

If you want to pick a Trust, independent sector provider, or PCT, and get a full analysis of the pressures in any specialty, then all the detail is here: Gooroo reports

Where are the very-long waiters?

The number of one-year-waiters has been falling rapidly, and in August it broke new records again by falling almost to the 2,000 mark. This map shows where one-year-waiters are still being reported on Trusts’ waiting lists, along with other waiting time statistics and year-on-year comparisons:

Other maps you might find useful:
All specialties together, by NHS/IS provider (same as map above)
Each specialty separately, by NHS/IS provider
All specialties together, by PCT (i.e. population basis)
Each specialty separately, by PCT

Where are the most ‘clock pauses’?

This map shows where the greatest amount of clock-pausing is happening, measured by the difference between 90th centile adjusted and unadjusted waiting times.

Why this focus on clock pauses? Because the best way to tackle long waits in the NHS is to address the two root causes: waiting lists that are too big, and sub-optimal patient scheduling. If services come to rely on clock pauses to achieve their targets month after month, then that deflects attention from those root causes. If a service gets to the point where it is over- or mis-using clock pauses then that is unfair to patients, and likely to end in crisis when the position becomes unsustainable. So the intention of this focus on clock pauses is to shine light on them so that they are not over-used, and the root causes of long waits are addressed instead.

Clock pauses are applied by the provider, so here is a map showing where clock pauses have the greatest effect at Trust-specialty level:

Finally, here is the same map by PCT.