That's interesting but as these are NHS figures shouldn't they include T1's treated by hospital clinics too?@bulkbiker I only go to the vet when I'm sick, in fact I'm going in a coupe of days. My diabetic disease is dealt with at the hospital. I'm not sure how informed my vet is on T1 but he certainly knew enough to send me straight to hospital last year. I agree though that the numbers are surprising indeed.
Yep @bulkbiker good point about how the figures are arrived at. You are always very perceptive. Thanks, good insightThat's interesting but as these are NHS figures shouldn't they include T1's treated by hospital clinics too?
@DCUKMod do you know how these figures are collated.
I do wish sometime that they would explain the methodology of collection it would make understanding the figures so much easier..
Sorry if I've confused you @Alison54321 we've always referred to the doctor as a vet. I have nothing but admiration for the profession and my vet in particular but can't shake the habit of using the name.Good on your mum
Yep totally in agreement with that @Alison54321 . For me too, respect is always earned not automatically bestowed. I've not been to a real vet for donkey's years but hope to adopt a dog soon so who knows what they'll be able to diagnose.I was rather taken with the idea of you going to the vet and saying you felt ill, and he diagnosed it.
I've met some good doctors, and some bad ones. I'm keener on the idea of respecting people for their individual achievements, rather than assuming that because they are a member of a group, that they should automatically be respected.
Thanks for that Sam very interesting. A bit odd that GP surgeries have to opt in for their data to be included. But I'm guessing that the data cannot "include" those that don't opt in so that can't explain the missing..Maybe I'm wrong, and it's been over a year since I was involved, but I thought the NDA 6.5% was raise to 7.5% to be brought in line with NICE's. If it wasn't NICE's it was some other national body, maybe it was a QoF target, but it was definitely change to 7.5% to be brought in-line with some national target.
@bulkbiker the data is collected for all UK diabetics, no matter whether they are under the care of a GP or a hospital. The data is all kept in a standard format by NHS Digital (except retinopathy data, which is why it isn't collected yet), so it can be accessed by the stats people (HQIP) working for the NDA.
I'm in work, so don't have time, but poke around here, the methods for collection and analysis are always explained.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it's been over a year since I was involved, but I thought the NDA 6.5% was raise to 7.5% to be brought in line with NICE's. If it wasn't NICE's it was some other national body, maybe it was a QoF target, but it was definitely change to 7.5% to be brought in-line with some national target.
@bulkbiker the data is collected for all UK diabetics, no matter whether they are under the care of a GP or a hospital. The data is all kept in a standard format by NHS Digital (except retinopathy data, which is why it isn't collected yet), so it can be accessed by the stats people (HQIP) working for the NDA.
I'm in work, so don't have time, but poke around here, the methods for collection and analysis are always explained.
No its completely incorrect.. in my view most "classic" Type 2's are overproducing insulin. There are some who underproduce who I imagine may well end up Type 1 or one of the variants. That's why I think the fasting insulin test is so important and cannot understand why it isn't used by the NHS. It would save so many misdiagnoses and so much mis-prescribing of the wrong medication.Is that correct?, my understanding of type 2 was that they (can) be producing a normal amount of insulin or even too much?
No its completely incorrect.. in my view most "classic" Type 2's are overproducing insulin. There are some who underproduce who I imagine may well end up Type 1 or one of the variants. That's why I think the fasting insulin test is so important and cannot understand why it isn't used by the NHS. It would save so many misdiagnoses and so much mis-prescribing of the wrong medication.
Edit to add I mean you are quite correct and the audit is incorrect.. I didn't make it very clear sorry
This is just a summary document (as it says). There's a ton of data supporting it, which is all available through the NHS Digital platform - you might want to go and have a google if you want the greater detail.Either way, I find this leaflet very lightweight considering it is published by the NHS.
The pressure!!!
This is just a summary document (as it says). There's a ton of data supporting it, which is all available through the NHS Digital platform - you might want to go and have a google if you want the greater detail.
It's probably worth adding to @SamJB 's point that the reporting is done at a CCG/Practice level, even if the collection is done in hospitals.
I think you are right in your assumption. That's nothing short of criminal!!! There has never been any clinical evidence that statins have been of any benefit to women. Older women need higher cholesterol. I don't understand how this target fits with 'First do no harm' . It's also totally at odds with the news reports of 'diabetics costing the NHS so much'...so don't prescribe them statins then. That will save a lot of money and some lives too.Well I've read it and it seems clear that they will be putting in an extra effort to get ALL diabetics on statins regardless of anything else, it's now an actual target.
I actually think a NICE target of 6.5% is useful, because in reality you can't achieve it without Libre, and the ,more people who reach the target when using it, the harder it becomes to resist it.
Hi Tim, I am sure the data is correct but you'd think they would expand the paragraph about what diabetes actually is?
I wish I had that level of confidence in the data. Data gathering is usually poor (NHS or not) - especially where much of it is governed by accurate coding.
I agree that no audit is every going to be 100% accurate, but believe me, the NDA is run by complete experts. There are 2 people with MBEs for diabetes research and care on the steering committee; and the stats and data gathering is run by professional statisticians from HQIP.
If the numbers are out, it will only be by a very small amount; certainly the trends and significant outcomes in the data are accurate.
My misgivings are around the donor data - presumably generated at the GP surgery end, based on manually input information (creating a background flag, and therefore countable).
Analysing the data will be fine but seeing the general level of incompetence at my surgery alone then I'm not too hopeful about the data quality and however smart the guys analysing it are if it's garbage going in...I agree that no audit is every going to be 100% accurate, but believe me, the NDA is run by complete experts. There are 2 people with MBEs for diabetes research and care on the steering committee; and the stats and data gathering is run by professional statisticians from HQIP.
If the numbers are out, it will only be by a very small amount; certainly the trends and significant outcomes in the data are accurate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?