• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Diabetes report!!

donnellysdogs

Master
Messages
13,233
Location
Northampton
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
Dislikes
People that can't listen to other people's opinions.
People that can't say sorry.
Just sent this email to their enquiries...

I have read your diabetes care report 2016 with interest.

Please can you tell me whether you had any input from the many diabetic patients that wrote to the APPG in 2016.

Under the FOI Act 2000 please can you tell me how you advertised for diabetic patients over all ages to be involved and how you measured your data collection with equality & diversity.

Under the FOI Act 2000 please can you tell me the breakdown of how many patients were surveyed and responded and the quantity of T2's and T1's.

Best wishes


Wonder what their response will be?
 
The care quality commission and the APPG are entirely separate bodies. Nothing to do with each other. I would anticipate that will feature in the CQC response to you foia, which also costs public money to respond to... All be it negligible public money given they will already have someone employed for the purpose
 
I know they are different, but did they use an info sharing scheme?

Or - how many of us knew about this CQC report? How many of us was asked to share our experience?

More importantly why was double amounts of money used from the public purse? Why have this exercise being carried out twice?

Are the CQC even aware that the APPG was asking for experiences?

Sorry, this wasting of money makes me angry.. I hope they did info share!!
 
donnellysdogs said:
No detail in it as to exact details of how they intend to improve.
Click to expand...

The CQC is the regulator for services, it is not responsible for deciding what the local services do in that sense. If it inspects a service and finds it seriously lacking it can force it to improve but cannot implement or suggest changes to the system as a whole. It does however produce reports such as this which can highlight areas where services generally should look to improve and offer examples of good practice it has seen.

Personally, I think we should be pleased that someone cares enough about the services we receive to put the effort into producing a report.


Declaration of Interest: Yes I work for CQC, but my messages on here are completely my own words/views and in no way am I an expert on everything (or anything?) the CQC does! In this case I have no connection to the report or anyone involved in it and have only seen the final version published on the internet like the rest of you.

Edited to add:
The introduction to the report shows what the CQC can and will do...

CQC is committed to encouraging improvement in diabetes care. CQC will:
zz Review our approach to long-term conditions, including diabetes, as part of the development of the next phase of our inspections of primary medical services and community health services.
zz Support our inspection teams to develop their understanding of good and outstanding diabetes care.
zz Identify and share examples of outstanding diabetes care from our inspections.
zz Include data relating to diabetes care in the development of our new insight model for monitoring quality and encouraging improvement.
zz Use our inspections to encourage providers of adult social care to ensure their staff have necessary capacity and capability.
 
The bodies are different and are focusing on different things


·CQC report:


The Care Quality Commission is a QUANGO, the independent regulator for health and social care in England.


Purpose of the CQC report – to ensure that community healthcare organisations are meeting existing guidelines. Considers how well care services are working together in the community to deliver diabetes care.


At p.35 of the full CQC report it details how they carried out the review – it was focused on two geographical areas (perhaps this explains why a wider group didn't know about it?), Liverpool and Sandwell & West Birmingham. They used an online webform, limited to these two areas to gather patient views. They received 96 responses.


At p.36 of the full CQC report it details engagement with BME groups and people with learning difficulties – semi structured reviews were established specifically to gather the views of BME groups (20 responses) and people with learning difficulties (22 responses).


It doesn't sound like the data capture would have been especially costly.


·APPG for diabetes report;


The All Party Parliamentary Group for Diabetes is, well anyone in parliament who wants to be involved in diabetes, they’ve all made friends across the political parties and formed a group so that they can report to parliament to advise on changes to laws/guidelines/regulations that might improve diabetes care.


Purpose of the APPG report – an investigation into how to improve standards and reduce variation in diabetes care, looking, in depth, at what practical solutions there are to reduce variations and making clear recommendations for change.


So, the APPG report over arches the CQC report and has a wider remit to consider revisions to standards of care that are currently in place. The CQC wouldn't have anything to say about CGM funding, because I think the provision of CGM is really a funding/rationing issue which is really outside of CQC authority.


The APPG data capture focused on inviting submissions from interested parties – again probably not a very costly process.


I would hope my submission to the APPG wasn't shared with the CQC because, well I didn't tick anything to say it could be and the reports are designed for different purposes. I wouldn't have thought it represents a doubling of cost, the CQC data capture looks to have been fairly limited. I think anything that gives patients an opportunity to voice views is generally a good thing and would be hesitant to call it a waste of money. Of course, I might change my judgement depending on what the APPG report looks like!
 
I tried to view the whole report from CQC and could only get the pdf coming up all the time.

Thanks for listing the details. I am shocked how they can do a report with just 90+ respondents!! That is hardly representative of England really.
Even if they had targetted a few more area that had more affluent or poorer areas they would have got more data... How can decisions be based on less than 100 persons? Even clinical trials generally have more than this! I areanged surveys at my GPs and got over 500 responses from 9,000 patients.

I too am glad my details weren't shared that went to the APPG without my permission but it still confuses me really why two "groups" with an interest in diabetes don't say that they will join together to discuss outcomes and recommendations etc.

As yet we don't know how the APPG will respond but what will happen if they are at different ends of the spectrum because the APPG interest was national?

I will get laptop out and view the whole report.

Does it identify whether they are sending report to CCG's, GPs etc?
 
Brilliant, thankyou so much for the link. I can digest the whole report now!!x
 
Some of the response back:-

I just cannot trust a report that is going national with advice to CCG's etc that is based on these statistics..

"Under the FOI Act 2000 please can you tell me how you advertised for diabetic patients over all ages to be involved and how you measured your data collection with equality & diversity.

We undertook fieldwork in ten Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) areas. We spoke to approximately 140 people with diabetes during these visits; these were people who were using health and care services which we visited as part of our fieldwork. We do not have a breakdown of diabetes type for these people and did not collect equality characteristics from them.

Under the FOI Act 2000 please can you tell me the breakdown of how many patients were surveyed and responded and the quantity of T2's and T1's.”

In addition to the above, we conducted in depth interviews with 42 people. 22 of these people had a mild to moderate learning disability. Four of these people had Type 1 diabetes; 18 had Type 2.

We interviewed 20 people from specific Black and Minority Ethnic groups – aggregated as follows. African or African Caribbean (8), South Asian (12). Of these people two had Type 1 and 18 had Type 2.


We also ran a web-form to gather people’s experiences of their care. This was promoted to and through local Healthwatch, voluntary and community groups, CCGs and councils within the 10 fieldwork areas. We also undertook small-scale social media advertising using the postcodes within the 10 CCG fieldwork areas to encourage people to complete the survey. There were 96 valid responses across 19 CCG areas (nearly all from the 10 CCG areas we undertook fieldwork in, a small number of responses were received from 9 other areas). To be included in the analysis respondents had to be aged 18-65. Of the 96 respondents, 40 had Type 1 diabetes and 56 had Type 2 diabetes. The ethnicity aggregated breakdowns of the 96 valid responses are below.

· 81 White - English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British
· 6 Asian / Asian British (Bangladeshi; Indian; Pakistani)
· 9 other (includes White – Other; Black / African / Caribbean / Black British – African; those who did not provide information on their ethnicity)"
 
I have seen the report go to pulse magazine for GPs online and if its based upon this representation why on earth is it going out?? This sort of medical advise and reporting to me is just ridiciulous....
 
Here's a fairly positive report. It looks at cost savings by providing better services in the first place. Interesting concept, seeing as the NHS seem to think they are always doing the right thing. Not their fault entirely, I don't mean to knock the good old NHS. One day it's GPs will be able to use their knowledge instead of following guidelines.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Diabetes UK Cost of Diabetes Report.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…