Data Health Warning
You would think the NHS and other government sites would provide objective and correct information, right?
Well, on the right is the display of the NHS.UK site on the 31st December 2014.
As you can see, we have allegedly a 99.4% satisfaction rating for patients being treated with care and concern. This is rated as 'OK', just like the chestnuts at 81.7%.
However, the Faversham Health Centre is rated as 'GOOD' with a score of 95.3%.
Call me dim, but is 99.4 not more than 95.3? And should that not be marked as 'GOOD' too?
Of course, neither our score or any of the others is actually correct. These data are taken from the GP patient survey and they state that we had a 99% rating for this (69% very good, 30% good and 1% neither good nor poor) and the Faversham Health centre had 93% (with 55% very good and 38% good).
11 months on, the quality of the data has deteriorated further, now alleging a 70% satisfaction, rated red. See the email chain in the file on the right top of this page.
CARE QUALITY COMMISSION
This is led by two professors. CQC have designed an 'intelligent' rating system to decide which practices to inspect first.
We are rated with three risk warnings, for prescribing too many antibiotics, not vaccinating patients and for not enough patients seeing their preferred GP.
The antibiotic rating is for prescribing too many 'serious' antibiotics, that should be reserved for serious infections. As you can see we prescribe 79 times for 4287 ASTRO-PU's, which is a 'risk' and a neighbouring practice prescribes 477 for 15429 ASTRO-PU's (they have more patients) which is rated OK.
This gives us 79/4287 = 0.018 antibiotic per ASTRO-PU (18 per 1,000) and the neighbours 477/15429 = 0.031 antibiotic per ASTRO-PU (31 per 1,000).
I must have gone to a different school to the professors as I think that 18 is less than 31, so how can it be that we are rated as prescribing too much?
Then we are rated as not enough patients receiving the flu jab, CQC says only 33% of the patients were given this. However the Information Commissioner's website shows we gave 100% for people with COPD, 93% for diabetes, 88% for stroke, and 100% for heart disease. Overall this makes 95% of the patients that wanted the vaccine, the others we could not get hold of.
Finally, how come not enough people see the GP of their choice?
There is only one GP working at our practice and he only has one or two weeks holiday per year.
So just by sheer time, 50 out of 52 weeks (96% of the time) you will see the same GP.
How can the CQC say this is much less than 38% of the time?