powerful analysis, influencing decisions 16 april, 2015 commissioning analysis and intelligence team...
TRANSCRIPT
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions18 April 2023
Commissioning Analysis and Intelligence Team
Kate Manton and Roger Halliday
Shared Decision MakingThe Evidence
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 218 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation & interventions that drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 318 April 2023
Put another way, the aim of this work is to help to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision making
“Shared decision making will never be widely practiced unless clinicians embrace the idea”1
Shared decision making will take time I haven’t got
Shared decision making isn’t appropriate for my patients
Shared decision making isn’t appropriate to my specialty
Barriers to clinician engagement1
There is no indication that using shared decision making takes more time. Indeed,
it can reduce demand for services
The vast majority of people want more involvement in decision making. Giving this tends to improve their quality of life, health, satisfaction with care that is safer
Studies consistently find benefits of shared decision making covering a wide
range of specialties, though not all covered yet
Source: (1) Implementing shared decision making in the UK, Coulter (2009), Health Foundation
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 418 April 2023
Before exploring the evidence, it is important to be clear that shared decision making is about a balanced approach to care decisions
Source: Systematic review of the effects of SDM on patient satisfaction, treatment adherance and Health status, April 2008, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 518 April 2023
Patient expectation about involvement in decisions
Patient sole decision maker
5%
Patient decides after consultation
18%
Doctor decides after consultation
16%
Doctor sole decision maker10%
Shared decision51%
While there are a range of views, half of people are looking to share decision making with clinicians and a quarter looking to be the lead decision maker
Source: Coulter & Jenkinson “European patients’ views on the responsiveness of health systems and healthcare providers” (2005) European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 15, No. 4, 355–360Note: Figures based on international study. As UK was similar to international average, this is likely to be close to England position
26% say doctor shouldhave primary decisionrole
23% say patient shouldhave primary decisionrole
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 618 April 2023
A substantial number of patients feel they are not encouraged to play an active role in their care. People report practice nurses are significantly better than other professions in involving patients in this way.
Were you encouraged to self care or play an more active role in caring for your long-term condition when you approached or looked at……
16
24
27
36
38
35
34
39
46
38
33
23
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Practice nurse
GP
Hospital doctor
Local Pharmacist
No Yes, a bit Yes, a lotSource: Self care for people with long-term conditions, Department of Health, 2009
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 718 April 2023
However, there has been an apparent lack of progress in engaging hospital inpatients in decision making in recent years
Were you involved as much as you wanted to be in decisions about your care and treatment?
53% 52% 51% 52% 52%
37% 37% 38% 37% 37%
10% 11% 11% 10% 11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% a
ll re
sp
on
ses
Yes, definitely Yes, to some extent NoSource: CQC inpatient surveys 2005-2009
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 818 April 2023
And while the UK performs quite well in most international health comparisons, it is worst out of seven comparator countries when it comes to delivering patient-centred care
% people saying the "Doctor always tells you about treatment options and involves you in decisions about the best treatment for you"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Australia Canada Germany Netherlands New Zealand UK USA
% r
esp
on
den
ts
Source: Davis, K., Schoen, C., & Stremikis, K. 2010, Mirror, mirror on the wall: how the performance of the US health care system compares internationally, Commonwealth Fund, New York.
% people saying the "regular doctor always or often tells you about care, treatment choices and asks opinions"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Australia Canada Germany Netherlands New Zealand UK USA
% r
esp
on
den
ts
Source: Davis, K., Schoen, C., & Stremikis, K. 2010, Mirror, mirror on the wall: how the performance of the US health care system compares internationally, Commonwealth Fund, New York.
% people saying the "Regular doctor always or often encouraged you to ask questions"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Australia Canada Germany Netherlands New Zealand UK USA
% r
esp
on
den
ts
Source: Davis, K., Schoen, C., & Stremikis, K. 2010, Mirror, mirror on the wall: how the performance of the US health care system compares internationally, Commonwealth Fund, New York.
% people saying the "Regular doctor always or often gives clear instructions about symptoms, when to seek further care"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Australia Canada Germany Netherlands New Zealand UK USA
% r
esp
on
den
ts
Source: Davis, K., Schoen, C., & Stremikis, K. 2010, Mirror, mirror on the wall: how the performance of the US health care system compares internationally, Commonwealth Fund, New York.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 918 April 2023
Patients want involvement in decisions
When asked whether they had been sufficiently involved in decisions about their care, nearly half of hospital inpatients and 30% of outpatients said they were not involved as much as they wanted to be1.
A survey on patient involvement found that over 50% of people wanted a model where doctors and patients made joint decisions about treatment decision. It also found that a higher proportion of younger people preferred this model, suggesting greater demand in the future for joint decision-making2.
Source: (1) National Patient Surveys, 2009, Care Quality CommissionSource: (2) A. Coulter in Shared Decision-Making in Health Care, Adrian Edwards and Glyn Elwyn, 2009, page 159-160
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1018 April 2023
6%
3%
10%
40%
41%
37%
55%
56%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Family doctor/GP*
Practice nurse*
Hospital Doctor#
Poor Good Very good
There is little difference between GPs, practice nurses and hospital doctors in making their patients feel involved in decisions. A small group of people feel their clinician is poor at involving them in decisions
Q: How would you rate your practice nurse/GP/hospital doctor at involving you in decisions about your health care…?
Sources: *GP patient survey, Department of Health, Q3/Q4 2009-10 #NHS Inpatient Survey, 2009, Care Quality Commission
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1118 April 2023
Study found GPs to be receptive to SDM, although practical barriers such as time need to be addressed
Results• Attitudes and confidence ratings showed positive changes• Time constraints remained important as barrier
Method
• Study carried out in South Wales in 2000 • Randomised trial looking at GPs attitudes to involving patients in SDM• 20 GPs received training in SDM skills• GPs consulted with up to 48 patients each for study• Questionnaire assessments before and after each training stage
Conclusion• Professionals receptive to patient involvement and willing to acquire relevant skills• Time should be addressed as priority
Source: Involving patients in decision making and communicating risk: a longitudinal evaluation of doctor ’s attitudes and confidence during a randomised trial, March 2004, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1218 April 2023
Virtually all clinicians are supportive of the principle of shared decision making and patient decision aids, though some key practicalities get in the way of this being a reality.
Source: (1) “Findings from a national survey of physicians”, Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making (2009)Source: (2) Hibbard et al “Measuring clinician beliefs about patient self-management” (2010)
45%
38%
6%
4%
7%
Not enough time
Patient has difficulty
understanding
No trusted information
sourceP
atients rely on my
recomm
endations
Oth
er
Biggest clinician barrier to shared decision making 1
Clinicians support idea of shared decision making
•93% clinicians report shared decision making as a positive process. 1
•96% clinicians say they would use decision aids if they met clinical standards (48% say much more comfortable with this).1
•No significant differences in attitude to and delivery of shared decision making by characteristic of clinician2
•However, 43% say shared decision making could lead to unnecessary tests or screenings.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1318 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation and interventions that drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1418 April 2023
The evidence shows that more “activated”* patients are ….
Service use• admitted to hospital 17% less2, though more likely to use more out of hospital healthcare resource1
• Much less likely to be readmitted to hospital in 30 days2
Quality of life• More satisfied with their life1
• More control of their life1
Evidence covers many different dimensions of patient care and outcomes
Safer care• less likely to have an adverse incident as result of poor care coordination2
• less likely to suffer as result of medical error2
Clinical indicators• more likely to stick to treatment regimes3
• 18% more likely to have good glycemic control2
• better clinical outcomes for conditions where researched
Patient experience
• 1% of patients involved in decision making are dissatisfied with their experience of care, compared to 39% who are not involved4
•1% increase in patient involvement associated with 0.4% rise in satisfaction4
Source: (1) Department of Health analysis of “Self care survey”, Department of Health/Ipsos-MORI, 2009Source: (2) Carol Remmers. The Relationship Between the Patient Activation Measure, Future Health Outcomes, and Health Care Utilization Among Patients with Diabetes. Kaiser Care Management Institute, PhD Dissertation.Source: (3) The impact of patient participation on adherence and clinical outcome in primary care of depression. Loh et al. Patient education and counselling 65(2007) 69-78Source: (4) GP patient survey, Department of Health/Ipsos-MORI 2009-10,Note: (*) “Activated” patients are those who have the necessary knowledge, skill, and confidence to play a significant role in decisions and management of their health
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1518 April 2023
Activating patients is likely to mean they get safer care and have greater confidence in health system
Source: Carol Remmers. The Relationship Between the Patient Activation Measure, Future Health Outcomes, and Health Care Utilization Among Patients with Diabetes. Kaiser Care Management Institute, PhD Dissertation.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% readmission to hospital in 30 days
% experienced a medical error
% reporting poor care coordination
% suffering health consequences due to poorcare coordination
% reporting lost confidence in healthcare system
Highly active patients Less activated patients
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1618 April 2023
A study of people with depression found patient participation greatly influenced treatment adherence and improved clinical outcomes
Source: Loh et al. “The impact of patient participation on adherence and clinical outcome in primary care of depression”. Patient education and counselling 65(2007) 69-78
Patient participation in shared decision making
The study measured six aspects of patient participation following initial appointment:
• patient helped to understand information• Doctor felt to understand what was important to the patient• Doctor answers questions well• Feeling of adequate involvement in decisions• Extent decisions were made jointly by patient and clinician•Satisfaction with decision making process
Better treatment adherence
Separately assessed separately by GPs and patients after eight weeks on the
programme
Reductions in severity of depression related complaints
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1718 April 2023
Allowing for socio-demographic factors, more active patients in England are more likely to be satisfied with and in control of their life, and use more out of hospital health services. Activation isn’t linked to change in health status
Socio-demographics
Socio-demographics
Service deliveryService delivery
Patient activationPatient
activation
•Older people•In good health
•Older people•In good health
Sex, deprivation income, rurality, Sex, deprivation income, rurality,
x
Satisfaction and control of life and
health
Satisfaction and control of life and
health
•Prep to see doc•Healthy lifestyle•Active self care•Own care ability
•Prep to see doc•Healthy lifestyle•Active self care•Own care ability
Satisfaction with services
Satisfaction with services
x
Key health drivers of life control and satisfaction1
Source: (1) Department of Health analysis of “Self care survey”, Department of Health/Ipsos-MORI, 2009Source: (2) Carol Remmers. The Relationship Between the Patient Activation Measure, Future Health Outcomes, and Health Care Utilization Among Patients with Diabetes. Kaiser Care Management Institute, PhD Dissertation.
Use of health care services
•Evidence from the USA is that active patients are admitted to hospital 17% less, and much less likely to be readmitted to hospital in 30 days2
• Taking account of socio-demographic characteristics, more active people more likely to use out of hospital services1
Health Status•Taking account of socio-demographic characteristics, there is no relationship between patient activation and their health status1
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1818 April 2023
People who are involved in decisions are more satisfied
•Out of the patients who answered good or very good to their rating of their GP involving them in decisions, 96% are satisfied with the care they received.
•Whereas, of those who answered poor or very poor, only 37% are satisfied care.
Source: GP patient survey, Department of Health, Q3/Q4 200910
Doctor is poor at involving patient in decisions
37%
24%
39%
Doctor is good at involving patient in decisions
96%
3%
1%
Satisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
How satisfied are you with the care you received at your GP surgery?
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 1918 April 2023
Hospital patients are more likely to rate their care good to excellent when they feel they are involved in decisions
Patient didn't feel involved in decisions
64%
20%
15%
Source: NHS Inpatient Survey, 2009, Care Quality Commission
Patient felt involved in decisions
96%
3%
1%
Good to Excellent care
Fair care
Poor care
Overall, how would you rate the care you received?
• Out of the patients who felt involved in decisions, 96% of them rated the care they received as good to excellent
• Out of those who didn’t feel involved in decisions, 64% rated the care they received as good to excellent.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2018 April 2023
Source: Analysis of the GP Patient Survey Q3 + Q4 2009/10
A regression was carried out to see how significant aspects such as: Involvement in decisions; confidence and trust in GPs; and explanations of tests and treatments were in determining a patient’s satisfaction with care.
Other factors that were included to try to isolate the effect of patient involvement issues included socio-demographics (like age, health status), practice characteristics (like deprivation, rurality and prevalence of conditions) and service factors (like time since last GP visit). There is a full list in annex.
FINDINGSConfidence and trust in the GP, and patients feeling their GPs listened to them were most significant in explaining satisfaction with care. These are aspects of shared decision making.A 10% increase in patients…..
•….who felt more involved in decisions is linked to a 1% increase in satisfaction•….who had confidence and trust in their GP is linked to a 4.9% increase in satisfaction•….who felt listened to is linked to increased satisfaction of 2.4%•….who felt their GP was good at explaining tests and treatments is linked to a 0.5% increase
•77% of the variability in satisfaction can be accounted for by the variables mentioned above
When taking other factors into account, involvement in decisions with the GP and explanations of treatments is still key to satisfaction
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2118 April 2023
Feeling listened to and having trust in your GP, is directly linked to higher satisfaction with primary medical care
1.0%
4.9%
2.4%
0.5%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
...felt more involved indecisions
...had confidence and trustin GP
...felt listened to
...felt their GP was good atexplaining tests and
treatments
A 10% increase in patients who….
Associated increase in satisfaction
Source: GP patient survey, Department of Health, Q3/Q4 200910
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2218 April 2023 Source: Department of Health analysis of the NHS Inpatient Survey 2009
FINDINGSInvolvement in decisions about discharge, confidence and trust in doctor/nurse and involvement in decisions about care and treatment were significant in determining rating of care
A 1 point increase in….
• …Confidence and Trust in their Doctor is linked to 0.5 point increase in rating of care
• …Confidence and Trust in their Nurse is linked to a 0.4 point increase in rating of care
•…Involvement in decisions about care and treatment is linked to a 0.4 point increase in rating of care
•...Involvement in decisions about their discharge in linked to a 0.1 point increase in rating of care
87% of the variability in the rating of care can be explained by this model
Shared decision making is important to improving patient satisfaction in hospitals as well as GP practices
METHODThe NHS Inpatient survey includes a question on how the patient would rate the care they received. Each trust receives a mean score for each question. This ranges from 0 to 100, 100 being the most positive score
A regression was carried out to see whether the following variables influenced the rating of care:-•Confidence and Trust in Doctor/Nurse•Involvement in Decisions about care and treatment•Good explanations of risks and benefits of treatments•Involvement in decisions about dischargeAgain, socio-demographic and other trust factors were included in the regression.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2318 April 2023
10 point increase in trust score of patients who….
5
4
4
1
- 1 2 3 4 5 6
had confidence and trust in hospitaldoctor
had confidence and trust in hospitalnurse
felt involved in decisions aboutcare and treatment
felt involved in decisions aboutdischarge
Increase in rating of care
Source: Department of Health analysis of the NHS Inpatient Survey 2009
Feeling involved in decisions and having trust in your hospital doctor or nurse, is directly linked to higher satisfaction with hospital care
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2418 April 2023
Analysis of the GP Patient Survey Q3 + Q4 2009/10, Hospital Episode Statistics 2008-09, Exeter Payments System 2009-10
RESULTS
• Involvement in decisions and the explanation of tests and treatments were not significant in number of ACS referrals. This could mean that patients who are involved in decisions are not referred more or less than people who are not.
• Every 1% increase in patients who felt they had confidence and trust in their GP, leads to 6.8 less ACS referrals per 1000
•Every 1% increase in patients who felt their GP listened to them, leads to 5.7 more ACS referrals per 1000
• 43% of the variability in ACS referrals could be explained by this model
METHODAmbulatory Care Sensitive conditions are illnesses – mainly chronic diseases, where adequate care can safely be provided in primary care. These conditions contribute most to avoidable emergency hospital admissions which are expensive. The same variables, as in the previous slide, were used to determine whether they affect ACS referrals.
No link between involvement in decisions and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2518 April 2023
There is room for improvement for hospital Trusts : after standardisation for patient type there are 18 percentage points from highest to lowest in involving patients in decisions
Relationship between Decisions and Rating of Care
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95Rating of Care
Invo
lvem
ent i
n D
ecis
ions
Correlation Coefficient = 0.88
Specialist trusts feature a lot among those rated highest
There is a strong the relationship is between the
rating of care and Inpatients involvement in decisions
Source: Analysis of the NHS Inpatient Survey 2009
98%
80%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Hom
erto
n U
nive
rsity
Hos
pita
l NH
S F
ound
atio
n T
rust
Nor
th M
iddl
esex
Uni
vers
ity H
ospi
tal N
HS
Tru
st
Bar
king
, Hav
erin
g an
d R
edbr
idge
Uni
veris
ty H
ospi
tals
NH
S T
ru
Sur
rey
and
Sus
sex
Hea
lthca
re N
HS
Tru
st
Eal
ing
Hos
pita
l NH
S T
rust
Geo
rge
Elio
t Hos
pita
l NH
S T
rust
Impe
rial C
olle
ge H
ealth
care
NH
S T
rust
Nor
th W
est L
ondo
n H
ospi
tals
NH
S T
rust
The
Lew
isha
m H
ospi
tal N
HS
Tru
st
Eps
om a
nd S
t Hel
ier U
nive
rsity
Hos
pita
ls N
HS
Tru
st
The
New
cast
le U
pon
Tyn
e H
ospi
tals
NH
S F
ound
atio
n T
rust
Cla
tterb
ridge
Cen
tre fo
r Onc
olog
y N
HS
Fou
ndat
ion
Tru
st
Nuf
field
Orth
opae
dic
Cen
tre N
HS
Tru
st
Roy
al N
atio
nal H
ospi
tal f
or R
heum
atic
Dis
ease
s N
HS
Fou
ndat
io
Pap
wor
th H
ospi
tal N
HS
Fou
ndat
ion
Tru
st
Roy
al O
rthop
aedi
c H
ospi
tal N
HS
Fou
ndat
ion
Tru
st
Chr
istie
Hos
pita
l NH
S T
rust
Que
en V
icto
ria H
ospi
tal N
HS
Fou
ndat
ion
Tru
st
Rob
ert J
ones
and
Agn
es H
unt O
rthop
aedi
c an
d D
istri
ct H
ospi
ta
The
Roy
al M
arsd
en N
HS
Fou
ndat
ion
Tru
st
% o
f p
atie
nts
invo
lved
in d
ecis
ion
s
10 Hospital trusts with lowest rating
10 Hospital trusts with highest rating% people feeling involved in decisions – highest/lowest hospital trusts
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2618 April 2023
Young, non-white people with no LTC feel less involved in decisions as they want to be
Decision making by Age Group
65% 65%69%
72%75%
79% 79% 77%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 or over
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
atie
nts
wh
o f
eel
they
are
in
volv
ed i
n d
ecis
ion
s (%
)
GP Patient Survey 200910 Q3+Q4
Decision making by Ethnicity
72% 71%68%
66% 66%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
White Afro Caribbean Other Mixed Asian
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
ati
en
ts w
ho
fe
el
the
y a
re i
nv
olv
ed
in
de
cis
ion
s (
%)
GP Patient Survey 200910 Q3+Q4
Decision making by LTC
71%76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
LTC No LTC
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f p
ati
en
ts w
ho
fe
el
the
y a
re i
nv
olv
ed
in
de
cis
ion
s (
%)
GP Patient Survey 200910 Q3+Q4
•Older people, white people and people who had an LTC are more involved in decisions
•Those in poorer health feel more involved in decisions although not significantly different from healthier people
•Targeting these groups that feel less involved in decisions they want to be involved in could help to narrow the gap
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2718 April 2023
However, there is a slightly different profile for activated patients, who tend to be younger, more educated and in better health.
Current inequalities in patient activation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
All
Wom
en
Men
45-5
4
55-6
4
65-7
4
75-8
4
85+
AB
C1
C2
DE
Se
cond
ary
or
less
Po
st s
eco
ndar
y
Deg
ree
or
high
er
Whi
te
Oth
er
Exc
elle
nt
Ve
ry
Goo
d
Fai
r
Po
or
Av
era
ge
pa
tie
nt
ac
tiv
ati
on
me
as
ure
sc
ore
Gender Age Social class Education Ethnic group Health Status
Source:How engaged are people in their health care? Findings of a national telephone survey, Picker Institute Europe, 2005
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2818 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation and interventions that drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 2918 April 2023
Patient decision aids have been shown to often improve patient activation and reduce healthcare costs
There is no evidence on the direct impact of patient decision aids on satisfaction with care, quality of life or life expectancy. However, this may come by being a more active patient
Service use• reduce discretionary surgery rates by around 25%1 • reduce decisions to have screening by up to 20%1 • reduce overall healthcare costs for some but not all treatment choices2-4
Patient knowledge significantly improved knowledge of condition and treatment choices1
International and UK evidence suggests that implementing patient decision aids would…
Patient decision making
• Reduce perception that choice made was ineffective (though no effect on satisfaction with decision)1
• Reduce indecision and give greater feeling of control in decision making1
Source: (1) O'Connor et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions (review). Cochrane Library, 2009 volume 2.Source: (2) Kennedy et al. “Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs JAMA2002; 288: 2701-2708Source: (3) Murray et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care. British Medical Journal 2001; 323: 490-3, Source: (4) Murray et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. British Medical Journal 2001; 323: 493-6.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3018 April 2023
The evidence suggests using patient decision aids makes little difference to the length of consultations
Choice of statin• 3.8 minutes extra outpatient consultation when using decision aid, but not statistically significant6
Breast cancer screening
• One study found consultations using decision aids took 8 minutes less than regular consultations2. Another found no difference in consultation length3.
Evidence is available covering five different situations
Cancer treatment • No difference in consultation length whether using decision aid or not4.
Pre-natal down syndrome screening
• Consultation using patient decision aids took 6 minutes longer than regular consultations5.
Elective referral from GP
• No difference in consultation length whether using decision aid or not1
Sources: (1,2,6 from Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals (Review) Légaré et al, 2010 (1) Stacey, 2006(2) Green 2004 (6) Nannenga 2009. 3-5 from O'Connor et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions (review). Cochrane Library, 2009 volume 2. (3) Whelan, 2003 (4)Butow 2004 (5) Bekker 2004
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3118 April 2023
Decision Aids tend to reduce rates of high volume discretionary surgery
Source: O'Connor et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions (review). Cochrane Library, 2009 volume 2.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3218 April 2023
Decision Aids also affect rates of screening and other therapies
Source: O'Connor et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions (review). Cochrane Library, 2009 volume 2.
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3318 April 2023
£1,810
£1,030
£1,333
1.58
1.57
1.57
£0 £200 £400 £600 £800 £1,000 £1,200 £1,400 £1,600 £1,800 £2,000
Standard Care
PtDA video
PtDA video and nursecoaching
Average cost (£)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8Average QALY gain
average cost (£) Average QALY gainSource: Kennedy et al. JAMA2002; 288: 2701-2708
As a result, overall costs for people using patient decision aids are usually below those who don’t, with no change in outcome
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3418 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation and interventions that drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3518 April 2023
People who got information on their long-term condition used more expensive services more often
People who got information on their long-term condition used more expensive services more often
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5F
amily
Doc
tor/
GP
/Nur
se
Loca
l pha
rmac
ist
Hos
pita
l Doc
or
Nur
se
Out
patie
nts
Hea
lthvi
sito
r/co
mm
unity
nurs
e
The
rapi
sts
Com
plem
enta
ryth
erap
y
A&
Ede
p/C
asua
lty/O
OH
serv
ice
NH
S d
irect
tele
phon
ehe
lplin
e
Men
tal H
ealth
serv
ice
Soc
ial w
orke
r
NH
S w
alk-
in c
entr
e
Sel
f car
e sk
ills
trai
ning
NH
S c
hoic
es
Av
era
ge
nu
mb
er o
f u
ses
pe
r p
ati
en
t p
er y
ea
r
Info users
Non Info users
Source: Department of Health/Ipsos-MORI, self care survey 2009
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3618 April 2023
Information forms part of feeling supported: receiving information at all is seen as basic requirement, but the quality of information significantly impacting on whether someone feels fully supported or not
69%
53%
65%
21%
33%16%
11% 14%19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Info Sought - good Info Sought - poor No Info
Yes- received all support I require Yes - but not all support required No - not received any supportSource: Department of Health/Ipsos-MORI, self care survey 2009
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3718 April 2023
Patients who hadn’t sought information would look to their GP in the future
People who hadn't sought information would look to their GP for information in the future
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Family Doc
Practice nurse
Local pharmacists/chemists
Hospital doc
NHS choices
Health websites
% of people who hadn't sought info
Source: Department of Health/Ipsos-MORI, self care survey 2009
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3818 April 2023
Lots of people use information to help manage their health or make choices, though this is much less so for people from minority ethnic groups and those living in the most deprived communities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
All
peop
le
Men
Wom
en
16-2
4
25-3
4
35-4
4
45-5
4
55-6
4
65+
AB
C1
C2
DE
Whi
te-B
ritis
h
Oth
er
Has
lon
g-te
rm c
ondi
tion
No
long
-te
rm c
ond
ition
Ve
ry a
fflu
ent
afflu
ent
aver
age
depr
ive
d
very
de
priv
ed
% p
eo
ple
wh
o s
aid
....
Information helped manage health Used info, but not helpedSource: primary care tracker survey - Jan-Oct 2010
Gender Age Social class Health Status
DeprivationEthnic group
Inequalities in using information about health conditions
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 3918 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation and interventions that drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4018 April 2023
There is evidence that personalised care planning can improve quality of life, satisfaction with care and reduce service use. This is a lever for activating patients, through joint decision making and information
Service use• 20% fewer hospital admissions and 28% few hospital bed days8
• No known change in other services8
Quality of lifeIncreased quality of life for diabetes patients (+5%) and asthma (+34%). No change for studies on COPD1-3
Local studies where care planning or person centred care has been tried show…
Satisfaction with care
• Better experience of communication with doctors and nurses8
• Better experience of treatment received8
• Reduced knowledge of condition compared to control group8
Clinical indicators• Higher BMI and blood pressure for diabetes patients7
• No change in other indicators (e.g HBA1C for diabetes patients)8
• No change in FEV1/FVC for people with asthma8
Source: (1) Kinmonth et al. 1998. “Randomised controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice: impact on current wellbeing and future disease risk ”, BMJ Vol 317 pp1202-1208Source: (2) Martin et al. 2004. “Care plans for acutely deteriorating COPD: A randomized controlled trial”, Chronic Respiratory Disease Vol 1 pp191-195Source: (3) Lahdensuo et al. 1996. “Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year”, BMJ Vol 312 pp748-752Source: (4) Ouwens et al. “Integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients: a review of systematic reviews” In J for Quality in Health Care 2005; Volume 17, Number 2: pp. 141–146Source: (5) Liu et al. 2003. “Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in a primary care veteran population”, Psychiatric Services Vol 54 698-704Source: (6) Katon et al. 1999. “Stepped collaborative care for primary care patients with persistent symptoms of depression”, Archives of General Psychiatry Vol 56 pp1109-1115Source: (7) Olivarius et al. 2001. “Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus”, BMJ Vol 323(7319) p970Source: (8) Care planning impact assessment, Department of Health, Jan 2009
Mortality Improved mortality for stroke patients, but not for people with diabetes4,7
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4118 April 2023
If someone agrees a care plan, they are more likely to be aware of and take up options for self care support. However, awareness is still relatively low even when people have engaged in care planning
Awareness that self care support can improve condition management by engagement in care planning
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Information to manageconditon
Information for choice of care Skills training Support network Home equipment
% a
war
e th
at s
elf
care
su
pp
ort
can
imp
rove
co
nd
itio
n m
anag
eme
nt
No plan or discussion
had discussion, not plan
agreed care plan
Source: primary care tracker, wave 27 (Oct09)
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4218 April 2023
Given personalised care planning should be offered to all with a long-term condition, it has the potential to reduce inequalities in patient activation. However, current delivery reflects existing inequalities.
Inequalities in personalised care planning
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
All
peop
le
Mal
e
Fem
ale
18 t
o 24
25 t
o 34
35 t
o 44
45 t
o 54
55 t
o 64
65 t
o 74
75 t
o 84
85 o
r ov
er
Brit
ish
Iris
h
Any
oth
er w
hite
Whi
te a
nd B
lack
Cai
bbea
n
Whi
te a
nd B
lack
Afr
ican
Whi
te a
nd A
sian
Any
oth
er m
ixed
Indi
an
Pak
ista
ni
Ban
glad
eshi
Any
oth
er A
sian
Car
ibbe
an
Afr
ican
Any
oth
er B
lack
Chi
nese
Oth
er
Exc
elle
nt
Ver
y go
od
Goo
d
Fai
r
Poo
r
Non
e
Bud
dhis
t
Chr
istia
n
Hin
du
Jew
ish
Mus
lim
Sik
h
Oth
er
I w
ould
pre
fer
not
to s
ay
Het
eros
exua
l/Str
aigh
t
Gay
/Les
bian
Bis
exua
l
Oth
er
I w
ould
pre
fer
not
to s
ay
% p
eop
le w
ith
a l
on
g-t
erm
co
nd
itio
n w
ho
ag
reed
a c
are
pla
n
Source: GP patient survey, 2010
Gender Age Health Status ReligionEthnic group Sexual orientation
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4318 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation and interventions that drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4418 April 2023
The case for self care support is well researched: self care skills training and education is likely to reduce service use and improve length & quality of life.
Service use• reduce number of GP visits6
• help to prevent unnecessary admissions to hospital6 • reduce length of stay of necessary hospital admissions6
Quality of life
• Increased life expectancy [+4 mths for people with diabetes]1,3
•Improve health status, self efficacy & control1-3
• Enable patients to remain in their homes and communities and halved days off work and improve feeling of control in their condition1-4
Evidence from studies round the world suggested that a supporting self care would…
Satisfaction with care
• increase choice for patients6 • improve end of life care6
• integrate all elements of care6
Clinical indicators• Reduce BMI, HbA1C & BP for people with diabetes1,3• lead to more smoking quitters, people who exercise and have good diet1-3• lead to reduced stress for people with mental health conditions
Self care support networks
• While some support networks have been shown to be modestly successful, a systematic review found there was limited patient benefit from these networks5
Source: (1) Jacobs-Van der Bruggen (2009); Cost-Effectiveness of Lifestyle Modification in Diabetic Patients; Diabetes Care 32:1453–1458, Source: (2) Kennedy et al. “The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a national lay-led self care support programme for patients with LTCs: a pragmatic RCT” J Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61;254-261Source: (3) A. Shearer et al Cost-effectiveness of flexible intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with Type 1 diabetes in the UK; Diabetic Medicine, 21, 460–467 Source: (4) Ipsos-MORI, primary care survey 2010Source: (5) Woolacott N, Orton L, Beynon S, Myers L, Forbes C Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of self care support networks in health and social care. Health Technology Assessment database http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?View=Full&ID=32006001556 Source: (6) Research evidence on the effectiveness of self care support, Department of Health (2007),
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4518 April 2023
If someone is supported to self care, they are much more likely to say they feel fully supported to manage their long-term condition
Extent people are supported to manage long-term condition by whether helped to self care
3
4
12
19
14
20
20
25
51
32
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Is s
om
eon
e h
elp
ed t
o s
elf
care
?
Don't know Don't need support Not received supportReceived some, not all support Received all support needed
Source: primary care tracker survey, Department of Health, 2009
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4618 April 2023
The aim of this paper is as a resource in making the evidence based case for shared decision making to the NHS. It outlines current expectations and performance, benefits of patient activation and interventions that can drive this
1 Shared decision making: Expectations and current performance
2 Benefits of patient activation
3 Patient decision aids: costs and benefits
4 Giving information to patients: costs and benefits
5 Personalised care planning: costs and benefits
6 Support for self care: costs and benefits
7 Access to own health records: costs and benefits
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4718 April 2023
Patients with access to their records feel more involved in their health care, have more confidence & understand appointment discussions better
9
5
76
62
54
25
26
21
21
34
43
36
65
74
3
4
3
39
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I am more worried about a particularaspect of my health
I am confused about a particular aspectof my health
I feel more involved in my health care
I understand better what has previouslybeen discussed at my appointments
I feel more confident in my GP
I have decided to seek further informationabout a particular aspect of my health
Agreed or strongly agreed Neither agreed nor disagreed Disagreed or strongly disagreed
+ve
-ve
Source: How patients use access to their electronic GP record – a quantative study, Vanita Bhavnania, et al. Family Practice, Nov 2010 - link
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4818 April 2023
Annex
Coe fficientsa
.178 .017 10.447 .000 .144 .211
.000 .009 .000 .017 .987 -.018 .018
.136 .020 .067 6.670 .000 .096 .176
.138 .027 .051 5.161 .000 .085 .190
.058 .039 .011 1.478 .139 -.019 .135
.034 .015 .017 2.208 .027 .004 .064
-.089 .011 -.051 -7.727 .000 -.111 -.066
-.170 .015 -.110 -11.534 .000 -.199 -.141
-.227 .024 -.086 -9.615 .000 -.273 -.181
-.081 .010 -.082 -7.850 .000 -.101 -.061
.099 .013 .126 7.676 .000 .073 .124
.486 .019 .315 26.142 .000 .449 .522
.020 .007 .017 2.704 .007 .005 .034
.000 .000 .021 2.316 .021 .000 .000
-.001 .001 -.007 -1.180 .238 -.003 .001
.000 .000 .009 .714 .475 .000 .001
-1.22E-06 .000 -.070 -5.597 .000 .000 .000
-.046 .073 -.009 -.631 .528 -.189 .097
-.104 .130 -.010 -.800 .424 -.358 .151
-.154 .039 -.086 -3.969 .000 -.230 -.078
-.942 .054 -.172 -17.481 .000 -1.048 -.837
.205 .073 .025 2.817 .005 .062 .348
.640 .242 .022 2.645 .008 .166 1.114
-.057 .059 -.009 -.962 .336 -.173 .059
-.274 .111 -.024 -2.461 .014 -.492 -.056
-.714 .112 -.047 -6.368 .000 -.934 -.494
-.050 .050 -.012 -.987 .324 -.148 .049
-.151 .097 -.013 -1.556 .120 -.341 .039
.608 .274 .013 2.218 .027 .071 1.145
.139 .127 .008 1.101 .271 -.109 .388
.044 .010 .036 4.391 .000 .024 .064
.017 .028 .005 .620 .535 -.037 .071
-.352 .150 -.032 -2.354 .019 -.645 -.059
.176 .016 .084 10.944 .000 .145 .208
.364 .176 .013 2.064 .039 .018 .709
.232 .049 .185 4.773 .000 .137 .328
-.164 .085 -.011 -1.923 .054 -.330 .003
.048 .008 .039 5.923 .000 .032 .064
.243 .015 .257 16.343 .000 .214 .272
.045 .014 .054 3.250 .001 .018 .073
(Constant)
age18to24
age65to74
age75to84
age85plus
excellent
good
fair
poor
noltc
dec isions
confidence
tried6months
depriv
rural
noofgps
lists ize
chd
stroke
bp
dm
copd
epil
thy
cancer
mh
asthma
hflvd
pc
dem
dep
ckd
af
obes
ld
smoke
cvd
gp3months
listen
explain
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval for B
Dependent Variable: satisfieda.
Coe fficientsa
7.353 1.826 4.026 .000 3.773 10.933
-.309 .992 -.003 -.312 .755 -2.253 1.635
-1.680 2.187 -.012 -.768 .442 -5.968 2.607
1.916 2.866 .010 .668 .504 -3.703 7.534
1.016 4.204 .003 .242 .809 -7.225 9.258
-3.223 1.640 -.024 -1.965 .049 -6.439 -.008
5.721 1.232 .049 4.642 .000 3.306 8.137
12.624 1.588 .121 7.949 .000 9.511 15.738
16.531 2.538 .093 6.513 .000 11.556 21.507
-6.987 1.109 -.104 -6.300 .000 -9.161 -4.813
-1.083 1.381 -.020 -.784 .433 -3.791 1.625
-6.770 1.996 -.065 -3.392 .001 -10.682 -2.857
2.558 .790 .032 3.238 .001 1.009 4.107
.061 .005 .170 11.510 .000 .051 .072
-.434 .115 -.037 -3.782 .000 -.659 -.209
.002 .040 .001 .062 .951 -.076 .081
-5.61E-05 .000 -.048 -2.388 .017 .000 .000
73.516 7.825 .202 9.395 .000 58.176 88.855
14.052 13.945 .021 1.008 .314 -13.284 41.389
8.459 4.175 .070 2.026 .043 .274 16.644
20.556 5.793 .056 3.548 .000 9.200 31.912
84.910 7.826 .155 10.849 .000 69.568 100.251
155.016 25.989 .081 5.965 .000 104.070 205.961
-11.299 6.367 -.026 -1.775 .076 -23.780 1.182
-74.539 11.951 -.096 -6.237 .000 -97.966 -51.112
68.821 12.054 .067 5.709 .000 45.192 92.450
27.320 5.407 .099 5.053 .000 16.721 37.920
-42.935 10.409 -.055 -4.125 .000 -63.339 -22.532
-18.577 29.446 -.006 -.631 .528 -76.298 39.144
109.237 13.620 .087 8.020 .000 82.538 135.935
3.487 1.079 .042 3.231 .001 1.371 5.602
-1.225 2.968 -.005 -.413 .680 -7.042 4.593
56.168 16.072 .075 3.495 .000 24.663 87.673
-4.424 1.730 -.031 -2.557 .011 -7.816 -1.032
20.011 18.936 .011 1.057 .291 -17.109 57.131
-28.769 5.228 -.339 -5.503 .000 -39.017 -18.521
-11.125 9.139 -.011 -1.217 .224 -29.040 6.790
1.043 .879 .012 1.187 .235 -.680 2.765
5.694 1.599 .089 3.562 .000 2.561 8.828
2.580 1.498 .046 1.722 .085 -.356 5.516
(Constant)
age18to24
age65to74
age75to84
age85plus
excellent
good
fair
poor
noltc
dec isions
confidence
tried6months
depriv
rural
noofgps
lists ize
chd
stroke
bp
dm
copd
epil
thy
cancer
mh
asthma
hflvd
pc
dem
dep
ckd
af
obes
ld
smoke
cvd
gp3months
listen
explain
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval for B
Dependent Variable: acsa.
R squared value = 77% R squared value = 43%
Regression output SPSS. Satisfied with care and ACS admissions per 1000 head. Enter method: Leaving insignificants in. GPPS y4q4 Practice level weighted.
(a) Satisfaction with care (slides 19-20) (a) Admissions for ACS conditions (slide 23)
Com
mis
sionin
g A
naly
sis
and Inte
lligence
Team
Powerful analysis, influencing decisions 4918 April 2023
Annex
Coefficientsa
-23.022 7.776 -2.961 .004 -38.389 -7.655
.484 .093 .302 5.176 .000 .299 .668
.354 .078 .263 4.571 .000 .201 .508
.388 .074 .371 5.231 .000 .242 .535
-.081 .087 -.041 -.935 .351 -.252 .090
.114 .057 .120 2.013 .046 .002 .226
-.039 .026 -.063 -1.520 .131 -.090 .012
.011 .056 .009 .201 .841 -.100 .122
.008 .050 .008 .159 .874 -.091 .107
.057 .041 .051 1.384 .169 -.024 .137
.261 .301 .047 .868 .387 -.334 .857
-.004 .054 -.003 -.069 .945 -.110 .102
-.080 .065 -.069 -1.247 .214 -.208 .047
.289 .384 .034 .753 .453 -.470 1.048
.092 .065 .060 1.410 .161 -.037 .221
(Constant)
Q32_mean
Q36_mean
Q41_mean
Q51_mean
Q58_mean
female_tpc
age1_tpc
age2_tpc
age3_tpc
eth2_tpc
eth3_tpc
eth4_tpc
eth5_tpc
eth6_tpc
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval for B
Dependent Variable: Q74_meana.
R squared value = 87%
From slides 21-22. Source: NHS Inpatient survey 2009. Regression analysis enter method. Trust level