Independent information. England-wide.Public data. Clear sources.

NHS trusts · Milton Keynes

Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Standing Way, Eaglestone, Milton Keynes, MK6 5LD

CQC: GoodActive source recordOrganisation information

What can I learn about Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust?

The recorded overall CQC rating is “Good”, dated 30 July 2019. These figures describe an organisation or network; check which service and location would handle your care.

UNDERSTAND YOUR OPTIONS

Care and access: the published picture

Start with the topics that matter to you. Each card explains one published measure; the date and reporting group show what it covers.

Inpatient experience across this trust

Patients’ survey responses across the trust. These can include several hospital sites.

2025 survey NHS trust

Patients’ overall hospital experience

8 out of 10

8 out of 10 was reported for “Patients’ overall hospital experience”. Adult inpatients’ reported experience, scored out of 10 and adjusted by the publisher for age, sex and admission route. Higher scores mean more positive experiences; small differences do not establish a better hospital.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall experience

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.88.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Being treated with respect and dignity

9 out of 10

9 out of 10 was reported for “Being treated with respect and dignity”. Adult inpatients’ reported experience of respect and dignity, scored out of 10. This describes the survey group and reporting unit shown, rather than every patient’s care.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respect and dignity

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.89.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

If you brought medication with you to hospital, were you able to take it when you needed to?

8.1 out of 10

8.1 out of 10 was reported for “If you brought medication with you to hospital, were you able to take it when you needed to?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: If you brought medication with you to hospital, were you able to take it when you needed to?

Reported sample: 224.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.68.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.9 out of 10
20218 out of 10
20227.9 out of 10
20237.4 out of 10
20248 out of 10
20258.1 out of 10
Explore 60 additional measures

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals?

7.5 out of 10

7.5 out of 10 was reported for “Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals?

Reported sample: 145.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.38.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20247.4 out of 10
20257.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you able to get hospital food outside of set mealtimes? This could include additional food if you missed set mealtimes due to operations/procedures or another reason.

6.3 out of 10

6.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you able to get hospital food outside of set mealtimes? This could include additional food if you missed set mealtimes due to operations/procedures or another reason.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you able to get hospital food outside of set mealtimes? This could include additional food if you missed set mealtimes due to operations/procedures or another reason.

Reported sample: 198.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.47.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 06.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20246.3 out of 10
20256.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

During your time in hospital, did you get enough to drink?

9.4 out of 10

9.4 out of 10 was reported for “During your time in hospital, did you get enough to drink?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: During your time in hospital, did you get enough to drink?

Reported sample: 382.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 9.19.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.5 out of 10
20219.1 out of 10
20229.2 out of 10
20239.2 out of 10
20249.2 out of 10
20259.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When you asked doctors questions, did you get answers you could understand?

8.6 out of 10

8.6 out of 10 was reported for “When you asked doctors questions, did you get answers you could understand?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When you asked doctors questions, did you get answers you could understand?

Reported sample: 380.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.39.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.5 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20228.6 out of 10
20238.4 out of 10
20248.5 out of 10
20258.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you?

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you?

Reported sample: 411.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.79.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.1 out of 10
20218.9 out of 10
20229 out of 10
20238.7 out of 10
20249 out of 10
20258.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When doctors spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

8.5 out of 10

8.5 out of 10 was reported for “When doctors spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When doctors spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

Reported sample: 409.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.49.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.3 out of 10
20218.2 out of 10
20228.2 out of 10
20238.1 out of 10
20248.4 out of 10
20258.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When you asked nurses questions, did you get answers you could understand?

8.5 out of 10

8.5 out of 10 was reported for “When you asked nurses questions, did you get answers you could understand?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When you asked nurses questions, did you get answers you could understand?

Reported sample: 377.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.29.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.7 out of 10
20218.4 out of 10
20228.4 out of 10
20238.2 out of 10
20248.4 out of 10
20258.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you have confidence and trust in the nurses treating you?

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “Did you have confidence and trust in the nurses treating you?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you have confidence and trust in the nurses treating you?

Reported sample: 410.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.69.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20228.9 out of 10
20238.5 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20258.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When nurses spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

8.3 out of 10

8.3 out of 10 was reported for “When nurses spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When nurses spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

Reported sample: 411.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.39.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.6 out of 10
20218.4 out of 10
20228.3 out of 10
20238.2 out of 10
20248.6 out of 10
20258.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How did you feel about the length of time you were on the waiting list before your admission to hospital?

5.9 out of 10

5.9 out of 10 was reported for “How did you feel about the length of time you were on the waiting list before your admission to hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How did you feel about the length of time you were on the waiting list before your admission to hospital?

Reported sample: 91.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.88.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 05.9. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20245.8 out of 10
20255.9 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

In your opinion, were there enough nurses on duty to care for you in hospital?

7.5 out of 10

7.5 out of 10 was reported for “In your opinion, were there enough nurses on duty to care for you in hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: In your opinion, were there enough nurses on duty to care for you in hospital?

Reported sample: 411.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 78.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.5 out of 10
20217 out of 10
20227.1 out of 10
20237.3 out of 10
20247.4 out of 10
20257.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, were you told something by a member of staff that was different to what you had been told by another member of staff?

7.7 out of 10

7.7 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, were you told something by a member of staff that was different to what you had been told by another member of staff?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, were you told something by a member of staff that was different to what you had been told by another member of staff?

Reported sample: 357.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.38.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208 out of 10
20217.4 out of 10
20227.9 out of 10
20237.5 out of 10
20247.7 out of 10
20257.7 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did staff looking after you involve you in decisions about your care and treatment?

7 out of 10

7 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did staff looking after you involve you in decisions about your care and treatment?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did staff looking after you involve you in decisions about your care and treatment?

Reported sample: 395.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.87.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207 out of 10
20216.5 out of 10
20226.7 out of 10
20236.5 out of 10
20246.9 out of 10
20257 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How much information about your condition or treatment was given to you?

8.7 out of 10

8.7 out of 10 was reported for “How much information about your condition or treatment was given to you?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How much information about your condition or treatment was given to you?

Reported sample: 401.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.59.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.8 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20228.7 out of 10
20238.7 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20258.7 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you feel able to talk to members of hospital staff about your worries and fears?

7.4 out of 10

7.4 out of 10 was reported for “Did you feel able to talk to members of hospital staff about your worries and fears?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you feel able to talk to members of hospital staff about your worries and fears?

Reported sample: 338.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.4 out of 10
20217.2 out of 10
20227.4 out of 10
20237.2 out of 10
20247.5 out of 10
20257.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated?

9.3 out of 10

9.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated?

Reported sample: 406.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 9.29.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.3 out of 10
20219.2 out of 10
20229.6 out of 10
20239.3 out of 10
20249.5 out of 10
20259.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Do you think the hospital staff did everything they could to help control your pain?

8.7 out of 10

8.7 out of 10 was reported for “Do you think the hospital staff did everything they could to help control your pain?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Do you think the hospital staff did everything they could to help control your pain?

Reported sample: 348.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.59.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.8 out of 10
20218.6 out of 10
20228.8 out of 10
20238.7 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20258.7 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you able to get a member of staff to help you when you needed attention?

8 out of 10

8 out of 10 was reported for “Were you able to get a member of staff to help you when you needed attention?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you able to get a member of staff to help you when you needed attention?

Reported sample: 379.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.98.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208 out of 10
20217.6 out of 10
20228 out of 10
20237.9 out of 10
20247.9 out of 10
20258 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Language needs (e.g. translation, braille)

8 out of 10

8 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Language needs (e.g. translation, braille)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Language needs (e.g. translation, braille)

Reported sample: 69.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.39.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Cultural needs (e.g. same gender staff)

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Cultural needs (e.g. same gender staff)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Cultural needs (e.g. same gender staff)

Reported sample: 55.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.89.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Religious needs (e.g. space to pray / meditate)

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Religious needs (e.g. space to pray / meditate)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Religious needs (e.g. space to pray / meditate)

Reported sample: 45.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.39.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Accessibility needs (e.g. mobility needs, room adaptations)

7.3 out of 10

7.3 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Accessibility needs (e.g. mobility needs, room adaptations)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Accessibility needs (e.g. mobility needs, room adaptations)

Reported sample: 143.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.79.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Dietary needs (e.g. medical, allergy, vegan)

8.6 out of 10

8.6 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Dietary needs (e.g. medical, allergy, vegan)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Dietary needs (e.g. medical, allergy, vegan)

Reported sample: 123.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Mental health needs (e.g. a quiet space, emotional support)

5.9 out of 10

5.9 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Mental health needs (e.g. a quiet space, emotional support)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Mental health needs (e.g. a quiet space, emotional support)

Reported sample: 95.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.17.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Before being admitted onto a virtual ward, did hospital staff give you information about the risks and benefits of continuing your treatment on a virtual ward?

6 out of 10

6 out of 10 was reported for “Before being admitted onto a virtual ward, did hospital staff give you information about the risks and benefits of continuing your treatment on a virtual ward?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before being admitted onto a virtual ward, did hospital staff give you information about the risks and benefits of continuing your treatment on a virtual ward?

Reported sample: 36.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.48.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20245.8 out of 10
20256 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you given enough information about the care and treatment you would receive while on a virtual ward?

6.2 out of 10

6.2 out of 10 was reported for “Were you given enough information about the care and treatment you would receive while on a virtual ward?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you given enough information about the care and treatment you would receive while on a virtual ward?

Reported sample: 36.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.98.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20247.2 out of 10
20256.2 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did staff involve you in decisions about leaving the hospital?

6.5 out of 10

6.5 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did staff involve you in decisions about leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did staff involve you in decisions about leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 397.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.27.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207 out of 10
20217 out of 10
20226.9 out of 10
20236.3 out of 10
20246.4 out of 10
20256.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did hospital staff involve your family or carers in decisions about you leaving the hospital?

5.6 out of 10

5.6 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did hospital staff involve your family or carers in decisions about you leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did hospital staff involve your family or carers in decisions about you leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 290.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.26.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you would need any additional equipment in your home, or any changes to your home, after leaving the hospital?

8 out of 10

8 out of 10 was reported for “Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you would need any additional equipment in your home, or any changes to your home, after leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you would need any additional equipment in your home, or any changes to your home, after leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 149.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.59 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.7 out of 10
20218.2 out of 10
20228 out of 10
20237.4 out of 10
20248.3 out of 10
20258 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you given enough notice about when you were going to leave hospital?

6.5 out of 10

6.5 out of 10 was reported for “Were you given enough notice about when you were going to leave hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you given enough notice about when you were going to leave hospital?

Reported sample: 413.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.47.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.1 out of 10
20216.9 out of 10
20226.9 out of 10
20236.6 out of 10
20246.9 out of 10
20256.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Before you left the hospital, were you given any information about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital? This includes any verbal, written or online information.

7.6 out of 10

7.6 out of 10 was reported for “Before you left the hospital, were you given any information about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital? This includes any verbal, written or online information.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before you left the hospital, were you given any information about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital? This includes any verbal, written or online information.

Reported sample: 376.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.2 out of 10
20218.1 out of 10
20228 out of 10
20237.6 out of 10
20247.8 out of 10
20257.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did you understand the information you were given about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital?

9 out of 10

9 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did you understand the information you were given about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did you understand the information you were given about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 278.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.79.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20212025 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20219 out of 10
20228.8 out of 10
20238.8 out of 10
20248.9 out of 10
20259 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Before you left the hospital, were your family or carers given the information they needed to care for you at home?

6 out of 10

6 out of 10 was reported for “Before you left the hospital, were your family or carers given the information they needed to care for you at home?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before you left the hospital, were your family or carers given the information they needed to care for you at home?

Reported sample: 265.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.57.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about any medicine you were to take at home, were you given any of the following?

4.5 out of 10

4.5 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about any medicine you were to take at home, were you given any of the following?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about any medicine you were to take at home, were you given any of the following?

Reported sample: 316.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 3.85.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 04.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20204.8 out of 10
20214 out of 10
20224.2 out of 10
20234.1 out of 10
20244.6 out of 10
20254.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How would you rate the quality of information you were given, while you were on the waiting list to be admitted to hospital? This includes verbal, written or online information.

7 out of 10

7 out of 10 was reported for “How would you rate the quality of information you were given, while you were on the waiting list to be admitted to hospital? This includes verbal, written or online information.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How would you rate the quality of information you were given, while you were on the waiting list to be admitted to hospital? This includes verbal, written or online information.

Reported sample: 93.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.88.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20246.8 out of 10
20257 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Before you left the hospital, did you know what would happen next with your care?

6.3 out of 10

6.3 out of 10 was reported for “Before you left the hospital, did you know what would happen next with your care?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before you left the hospital, did you know what would happen next with your care?

Reported sample: 361.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.17.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 06.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20206.3 out of 10
20216.5 out of 10
20226.6 out of 10
20236.1 out of 10
20246.4 out of 10
20256.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did hospital staff tell you who to contact if you were worried about your condition or treatment after you left hospital?

7.1 out of 10

7.1 out of 10 was reported for “Did hospital staff tell you who to contact if you were worried about your condition or treatment after you left hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did hospital staff tell you who to contact if you were worried about your condition or treatment after you left hospital?

Reported sample: 366.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.98.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.3 out of 10
20217.2 out of 10
20226.8 out of 10
20236.8 out of 10
20247.2 out of 10
20257.1 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you may need any further health or social care services after leaving the hospital? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

7.4 out of 10

7.4 out of 10 was reported for “Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you may need any further health or social care services after leaving the hospital? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you may need any further health or social care services after leaving the hospital? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

Reported sample: 203.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.4 out of 10
20218 out of 10
20228.1 out of 10
20237.5 out of 10
20248 out of 10
20257.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

After leaving the hospital, did you get enough support from health or social care services to help you recover or manage your condition? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

6.2 out of 10

6.2 out of 10 was reported for “After leaving the hospital, did you get enough support from health or social care services to help you recover or manage your condition? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: After leaving the hospital, did you get enough support from health or social care services to help you recover or manage your condition? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

Reported sample: 247.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.67 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 06.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20246.4 out of 10
20256.2 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Overall, did you feel you were treated with kindness and compassion while you were in the hospital?

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “Overall, did you feel you were treated with kindness and compassion while you were in the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall, did you feel you were treated with kindness and compassion while you were in the hospital?

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.69.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 09.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238.5 out of 10
20249.1 out of 10
20258.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital?

9 out of 10

9 out of 10 was reported for “Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital?

Reported sample: 400.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.89.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20229.1 out of 10
20238.8 out of 10
20249.2 out of 10
20259 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Overall, how was your experience while you were in the hospital? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you had a very poor experience and 10 means you had a very good experience.

8 out of 10

8 out of 10 was reported for “Overall, how was your experience while you were in the hospital? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you had a very poor experience and 10 means you had a very good experience.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall, how was your experience while you were in the hospital? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you had a very poor experience and 10 means you had a very good experience.

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.88.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.2 out of 10
20217.9 out of 10
20228.1 out of 10
20237.7 out of 10
20248.2 out of 10
20258 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How long do you feel you had to wait to get to a bed on a ward, after you arrived at the hospital?

6.2 out of 10

6.2 out of 10 was reported for “How long do you feel you had to wait to get to a bed on a ward, after you arrived at the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How long do you feel you had to wait to get to a bed on a ward, after you arrived at the hospital?

Reported sample: 397.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.87.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.3 out of 10
20216.8 out of 10
20225.8 out of 10
20236.2 out of 10
20246.3 out of 10
20256.2 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from other patients

6 out of 10

6 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from other patients”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from other patients

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.77.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 06.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20236.2 out of 10
20245.8 out of 10
20256 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from staff

8.4 out of 10

8.4 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from staff”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from staff

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.89 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 08.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238 out of 10
20248.2 out of 10
20258.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Hospital lighting

8.4 out of 10

8.4 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Hospital lighting”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Hospital lighting

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.98.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 08.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238.4 out of 10
20248.1 out of 10
20258.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Room temperature

8.9 out of 10

8.9 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Room temperature”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Room temperature

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.79.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 09.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238.8 out of 10
20249.1 out of 10
20258.9 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? I was not prevented from sleeping

3.2 out of 10

3.2 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? I was not prevented from sleeping”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? I was not prevented from sleeping

Reported sample: 408.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 3.14.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 03.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20233.8 out of 10
20243 out of 10
20253.2 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How clean was the hospital room or ward that you were in?

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “How clean was the hospital room or ward that you were in?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How clean was the hospital room or ward that you were in?

Reported sample: 406.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.59.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.9 out of 10
20218.9 out of 10
20229 out of 10
20238.7 out of 10
20249 out of 10
20258.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you get enough help from staff to wash or keep yourself clean?

8 out of 10

8 out of 10 was reported for “Did you get enough help from staff to wash or keep yourself clean?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you get enough help from staff to wash or keep yourself clean?

Reported sample: 281.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.68.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.1 out of 10
20217.7 out of 10
20227.9 out of 10
20237.6 out of 10
20248 out of 10
20258 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Admission to hospital

6.4 out of 10

6.4 out of 10 was reported for “Admission to hospital”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Admission to hospital

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.47.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Kindness and compassion

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “Kindness and compassion”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Kindness and compassion

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.69.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

The hospital and ward

7.3 out of 10

7.3 out of 10 was reported for “The hospital and ward”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: The hospital and ward

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.18 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Basic needs

7.9 out of 10

7.9 out of 10 was reported for “Basic needs”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Basic needs

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.58.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Doctors

8.6 out of 10

8.6 out of 10 was reported for “Doctors”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Doctors

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.49.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Nurses

8.3 out of 10

8.3 out of 10 was reported for “Nurses”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Nurses

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.18.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Your care and treatment

8.1 out of 10

8.1 out of 10 was reported for “Your care and treatment”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Your care and treatment

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 88.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Individual needs

7.6 out of 10

7.6 out of 10 was reported for “Individual needs”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Individual needs

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.98.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Virtual wards

6.1 out of 10

6.1 out of 10 was reported for “Virtual wards”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Virtual wards

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.78.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Leaving hospital

6.7 out of 10

6.7 out of 10 was reported for “Leaving hospital”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Leaving hospital

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.57.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

For your decision Check whether a site-level survey is also available for the hospital you would attend.

Referral-to-treatment pathways

How long treatment pathways had already been waiting at the reporting date. One person can have more than one pathway.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

58.8%

Total

58.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 37,528 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 37,528; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

37,528 waiting-list entries

Total

37,528 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,140 waiting-list entries

General Surgery Service

2,140 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

Explore 96 additional measures

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,509 waiting-list entries

Urology Service

2,509 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

3,100 waiting-list entries

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

3,100 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

4,783 waiting-list entries

Ear Nose and Throat Service

4,783 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

4,027 waiting-list entries

Ophthalmology Service

4,027 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,511 waiting-list entries

Oral Surgery Service

1,511 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1 waiting-list entries

Cardiothoracic Surgery Service

1 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiothoracic Surgery Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

60 waiting-list entries

General Internal Medicine Service

60 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,570 waiting-list entries

Gastroenterology Service

1,570 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,188 waiting-list entries

Cardiology Service

2,188 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

868 waiting-list entries

Dermatology Service

868 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,197 waiting-list entries

Respiratory Medicine Service

1,197 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,001 waiting-list entries

Neurology Service

1,001 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,427 waiting-list entries

Rheumatology Service

1,427 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

20 waiting-list entries

Elderly Medicine Service

20 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

4,242 waiting-list entries

Gynaecology Service

4,242 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

3,617 waiting-list entries

Other - Medical Services

3,617 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

907 waiting-list entries

Other - Paediatric Services

907 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,247 waiting-list entries

Other - Surgical Services

2,247 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

113 waiting-list entries

Other - Other Services

113 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

43.5%

General Surgery Service

43.5% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,140 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,140; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

63.5%

Urology Service

63.5% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,509 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,509; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

51.4%

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

51.4% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 3,100 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,100; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

47.8%

Ear Nose and Throat Service

47.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 4,783 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 4,783; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

52.9%

Ophthalmology Service

52.9% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 4,027 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 4,027; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

57.8%

Oral Surgery Service

57.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,511 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,511; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

100%

Cardiothoracic Surgery Service

100% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1 eligible waiting-list entry with a known start date. A small number of records can make this percentage change sharply; avoid drawing strong comparisons.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiothoracic Surgery Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

95%

General Internal Medicine Service

95% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 60 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 60; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

87.9%

Gastroenterology Service

87.9% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,570 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,570; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

78.8%

Cardiology Service

78.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,188 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,188; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

94%

Dermatology Service

94% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 868 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 868; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

88%

Respiratory Medicine Service

88% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,197 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,197; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

71.8%

Neurology Service

71.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,001 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,001; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

45.6%

Rheumatology Service

45.6% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,427 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,427; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

100%

Elderly Medicine Service

100% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 20 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date. A small number of records can make this percentage change sharply; avoid drawing strong comparisons.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 20; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

46.8%

Gynaecology Service

46.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 4,242 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 4,242; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

65.3%

Other - Medical Services

65.3% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 3,617 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,617; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

48.7%

Other - Paediatric Services

48.7% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 907 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 907; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

61.7%

Other - Surgical Services

61.7% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,247 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,247; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

68.1%

Other - Other Services

68.1% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 113 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 113; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

3.7%

General Surgery Service

3.7% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,140 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,140; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.8%

Urology Service

1.8% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,509 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,509; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

4.3%

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

4.3% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 3,100 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,100; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.7%

Ear Nose and Throat Service

1.7% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 4,783 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 4,783; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

3.3%

Ophthalmology Service

3.3% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 4,027 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 4,027; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.3%

Oral Surgery Service

1.3% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,511 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,511; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Cardiothoracic Surgery Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1 eligible waiting-list entry. A small number of records can make this percentage change sharply; avoid drawing strong comparisons.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiothoracic Surgery Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.7%

General Internal Medicine Service

1.7% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 60 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 60; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Gastroenterology Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,570 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,570; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0.1%

Cardiology Service

0.1% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,188 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,188; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Dermatology Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 868 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 868; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Respiratory Medicine Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,197 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,197; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Neurology Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,001 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,001; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

5.4%

Rheumatology Service

5.4% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,427 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,427; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Elderly Medicine Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 20 eligible waiting-list entries. A small number of records can make this percentage change sharply; avoid drawing strong comparisons.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 20; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

3.5%

Gynaecology Service

3.5% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 4,242 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 4,242; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

2.6%

Total

2.6% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 37,528 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 37,528; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

4.6%

Other - Medical Services

4.6% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 3,617 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,617; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

3.8%

Other - Paediatric Services

3.8% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 907 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 907; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

2.9%

Other - Surgical Services

2.9% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,247 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,247; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Other - Other Services

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 113 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 113; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

147 pathways

General Surgery Service

147 pathways was reported for “General Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

107 pathways

General Surgery Service

107 pathways was reported for “General Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Urology Service: completed admitted pathways

132 pathways

Urology Service

132 pathways was reported for “Urology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Urology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

253 pathways

Urology Service

253 pathways was reported for “Urology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed admitted pathways

129 pathways

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

129 pathways was reported for “Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed non-admitted pathways

287 pathways

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

287 pathways was reported for “Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed admitted pathways

97 pathways

Ear Nose and Throat Service

97 pathways was reported for “Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed non-admitted pathways

302 pathways

Ear Nose and Throat Service

302 pathways was reported for “Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ophthalmology Service: completed admitted pathways

83 pathways

Ophthalmology Service

83 pathways was reported for “Ophthalmology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ophthalmology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

484 pathways

Ophthalmology Service

484 pathways was reported for “Ophthalmology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Oral Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

50 pathways

Oral Surgery Service

50 pathways was reported for “Oral Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Oral Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

193 pathways

Oral Surgery Service

193 pathways was reported for “Oral Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Internal Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

39 pathways

General Internal Medicine Service

39 pathways was reported for “General Internal Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Internal Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

5 pathways

General Internal Medicine Service

5 pathways was reported for “General Internal Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gastroenterology Service: completed admitted pathways

284 pathways

Gastroenterology Service

284 pathways was reported for “Gastroenterology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gastroenterology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

127 pathways

Gastroenterology Service

127 pathways was reported for “Gastroenterology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cardiology Service: completed admitted pathways

78 pathways

Cardiology Service

78 pathways was reported for “Cardiology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cardiology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

231 pathways

Cardiology Service

231 pathways was reported for “Cardiology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Dermatology Service: completed admitted pathways

84 pathways

Dermatology Service

84 pathways was reported for “Dermatology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Dermatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

928 pathways

Dermatology Service

928 pathways was reported for “Dermatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Respiratory Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

24 pathways

Respiratory Medicine Service

24 pathways was reported for “Respiratory Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Respiratory Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

254 pathways

Respiratory Medicine Service

254 pathways was reported for “Respiratory Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Neurology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

227 pathways

Neurology Service

227 pathways was reported for “Neurology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Rheumatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

90 pathways

Rheumatology Service

90 pathways was reported for “Rheumatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Elderly Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

10 pathways

Elderly Medicine Service

10 pathways was reported for “Elderly Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gynaecology Service: completed admitted pathways

60 pathways

Gynaecology Service

60 pathways was reported for “Gynaecology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gynaecology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

179 pathways

Gynaecology Service

179 pathways was reported for “Gynaecology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Total: completed admitted pathways

1,607 pathways

Total

1,607 pathways was reported for “Total: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Total: completed non-admitted pathways

4,793 pathways

Total

4,793 pathways was reported for “Total: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Medical Services: completed admitted pathways

33 pathways

Other - Medical Services

33 pathways was reported for “Other - Medical Services: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Medical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

427 pathways

Other - Medical Services

427 pathways was reported for “Other - Medical Services: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Paediatric Services: completed admitted pathways

15 pathways

Other - Paediatric Services

15 pathways was reported for “Other - Paediatric Services: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Surgical Services: completed admitted pathways

345 pathways

Other - Surgical Services

345 pathways was reported for “Other - Surgical Services: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Surgical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

642 pathways

Other - Surgical Services

642 pathways was reported for “Other - Surgical Services: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Other Services: completed admitted pathways

7 pathways

Other - Other Services

7 pathways was reported for “Other - Other Services: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Other Services: completed non-admitted pathways

47 pathways

Other - Other Services

47 pathways was reported for “Other - Other Services: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

For your decision Ask which specialty and hospital site will handle your referral, and about your own expected wait.

Diagnostic tests and waiting lists

Historical diagnostic waiting lists and completed test activity describe different groups.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

1,015 waiting-list entries

1,015 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: AUDIOLOGY_ASSESSMENTS: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

253 waiting-list entries

253 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

1,021 waiting-list entries

1,021 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: CT: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

Explore 33 additional measures

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

164 waiting-list entries

164 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

712 waiting-list entries

712 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

71 waiting-list entries

71 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

190 waiting-list entries

190 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

585 waiting-list entries

585 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRI: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

2,919 waiting-list entries

2,919 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

418 waiting-list entries

418 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: SLEEP_STUDIES: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

7,400 waiting-list entries

7,400 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: TOTAL: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

52 waiting-list entries

52 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

78.1%

78.1% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 1,015 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: AUDIOLOGY_ASSESSMENTS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,015; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

2%

2% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 253 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 253; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

22.8%

22.8% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 1,021 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: CT: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,021; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

77.4%

77.4% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 164 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 164; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

31.5%

31.5% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 712 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 712; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

1.4%

1.4% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 71 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 71; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

0.5%

0.5% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 190 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 190; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

4.8%

4.8% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 585 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRI: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 585; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

5.2%

5.2% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 2,919 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,919; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

15.1%

15.1% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 418 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: SLEEP_STUDIES: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 418; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

22.5%

22.5% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 7,400 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: TOTAL: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 7,400; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

76.9%

76.9% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 52 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 52; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

305 tests

305 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: AUDIOLOGY_ASSESSMENTS: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

384 tests

384 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

1,639 tests

1,639 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: CT: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

327 tests

327 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

569 tests

569 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

73 tests

73 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

265 tests

265 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

1,056 tests

1,056 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRI: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

3,284 tests

3,284 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

248 tests

248 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: SLEEP_STUDIES: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

8,169 tests

8,169 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: TOTAL: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

19 tests

19 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

For your decision Confirm the test, referral route and site before comparing providers.

Cancer waiting-time standards

Published performance against specific cancer pathway standards, with separate patient groups.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer faster diagnosis within 28 days

81.9%

81.9% was reported for “Cancer faster diagnosis within 28 days”. July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer faster diagnosis within 28 days

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,973; see the source for the eligible group.

July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics. The cancer standards have distinct eligibility, start points and cohorts; they cannot be combined into an overall score.

Cancer waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat

96.4%

96.4% was reported for “Cancer treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat”. July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat

The calculation uses a denominator of 250; see the source for the eligible group.

July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics. The cancer standards have distinct eligibility, start points and cohorts; they cannot be combined into an overall score.

Cancer waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer treatment within the combined 62-day standard

63.3%

63.3% was reported for “Cancer treatment within the combined 62-day standard”. July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer treatment within the combined 62-day standard

The calculation uses a denominator of 152.5; see the source for the eligible group.

July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics. The cancer standards have distinct eligibility, start points and cohorts; they cannot be combined into an overall score.

Cancer waiting times · Coverage and method

For your decision Your clinical team can explain the next step and timescale for your own referral.

Patient-reported hip and knee outcomes

Patient-reported change after hip or knee replacement, adjusted by the publisher for the specified cohort.

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

Explore 159 additional measures

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

72 pairs

72 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

76 pairs

76 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

17.6 EQ VAS points

17.6 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

78.4 EQ VAS points

78.4 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

78.3 EQ VAS points

78.3 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

61.5 EQ VAS points

61.5 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

16.7 EQ VAS points

16.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

54 pairs

54 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

68 pairs

68 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

6 pairs

6 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

8 pairs

8 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 68.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

22.2 Oxford Hip Score points

22.2 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

39.7 Oxford Hip Score points

39.7 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

39.8 Oxford Hip Score points

39.8 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

16.7 Oxford Hip Score points

16.7 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

23.1 Oxford Hip Score points

23.1 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

76 pairs

76 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

76 pairs

76 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 76.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.7 EQ-5D Index points

0.7 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.2 EQ-5D Index points

0.2 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

65 EQ VAS points

65 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

50 EQ VAS points

50 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

15 EQ VAS points

15 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

48 Oxford Hip Score points

48 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

26 Oxford Hip Score points

26 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

22 Oxford Hip Score points

22 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Revision · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 1.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

66 pairs

66 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

82 pairs

82 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

7 pairs

7 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

9 pairs

9 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

11.2 EQ VAS points

11.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

76.2 EQ VAS points

76.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

76.1 EQ VAS points

76.1 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

67 EQ VAS points

67 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

9.1 EQ VAS points

9.1 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

45 pairs

45 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

77 pairs

77 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

16 pairs

16 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

16 pairs

16 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

17.3 Oxford Knee Score points

17.3 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

36.6 Oxford Knee Score points

36.6 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

36.3 Oxford Knee Score points

36.3 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

18.4 Oxford Knee Score points

18.4 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

18 Oxford Knee Score points

18 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

84 pairs

84 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

86 pairs

86 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.6 EQ-5D Index points

0.6 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.2 EQ-5D Index points

0.2 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

4 pairs

4 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 4.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

56.2 EQ VAS points

56.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

48.6 EQ VAS points

48.6 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

7.6 EQ VAS points

7.6 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

4 pairs

4 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

5 pairs

5 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 5.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Exact value withheld

The publisher has withheld this value. It must not be treated as zero.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

24.7 Oxford Knee Score points

24.7 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

15.2 Oxford Knee Score points

15.2 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

9.5 Oxford Knee Score points

9.5 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

5 pairs

5 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

6 pairs

6 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Revision · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 6.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

73 pairs

73 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

77 pairs

77 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

16.8 EQ VAS points

16.8 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

77.7 EQ VAS points

77.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

78.1 EQ VAS points

78.1 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

61.4 EQ VAS points

61.4 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

16.7 EQ VAS points

16.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

55 pairs

55 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

69 pairs

69 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

6 pairs

6 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

8 pairs

8 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 69.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

21.9 Oxford Hip Score points

21.9 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

39.4 Oxford Hip Score points

39.4 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

39.9 Oxford Hip Score points

39.9 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

16.8 Oxford Hip Score points

16.8 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

23 Oxford Hip Score points

23 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

77 pairs

77 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

77 pairs

77 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 77.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

68 pairs

68 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

86 pairs

86 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

9 pairs

9 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

9 pairs

9 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 86.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

10.2 EQ VAS points

10.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

75.2 EQ VAS points

75.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

74.9 EQ VAS points

74.9 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

65.9 EQ VAS points

65.9 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

9 EQ VAS points

9 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

49 pairs

49 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

82 pairs

82 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

16 pairs

16 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

17 pairs

17 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 82.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

16.8 Oxford Knee Score points

16.8 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

36 Oxford Knee Score points

36 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

35.6 Oxford Knee Score points

35.6 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

18.2 Oxford Knee Score points

18.2 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

17.4 Oxford Knee Score points

17.4 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

89 pairs

89 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

92 pairs

92 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 92.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RD8.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

For your decision Compare the same operation and cohort. Your clinician can discuss what an outcome might mean for you.

Hospital trends

Each measure retains its own reporting period. A&E reporting uses a changed footprint from April 2026; earlier points are excluded from our A&E trends.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

A&E 12 hour performance

10.1%

10.1% was reported for “A&E 12 hour performance”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: A&E 12 hour performance

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported. A&E footprint methodology changed from April 2026; earlier points are excluded from this comparison.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2026-042026-07 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2026-046.1%
2026-056.9%
2026-065.7%
2026-0710.1%

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

A&E 4 hour performance

67.1%

67.1% was reported for “A&E 4 hour performance”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: A&E 4 hour performance

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported. A&E footprint methodology changed from April 2026; earlier points are excluded from this comparison.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2026-042026-07 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2026-0470.7%
2026-0571.2%
2026-0669.1%
2026-0767.1%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer 31 Day Treatment Standard

93.2%

93.2% was reported for “Cancer 31 Day Treatment Standard”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer 31 Day Treatment Standard

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0692.3%
2025-0796.2%
2025-0895.7%
2025-0996.3%
2025-1094.4%
2025-1195.7%
2025-1295.6%
2026-0189%
2026-0297.4%
2026-0396.7%
2026-0494.9%
2026-0598.4%
2026-0693.2%
Explore 5 additional measures

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer 62 Day Combined Performance

55.8%

55.8% was reported for “Cancer 62 Day Combined Performance”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer 62 Day Combined Performance

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0669.1%
2025-0768.3%
2025-0869.3%
2025-0965.5%
2025-1053.3%
2025-1158%
2025-1269.4%
2026-0155.3%
2026-0263.3%
2026-0362.6%
2026-0465.7%
2026-0557.1%
2026-0655.8%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer Faster Diagnostic Standard

78.7%

78.7% was reported for “Cancer Faster Diagnostic Standard”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer Faster Diagnostic Standard

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0677.1%
2025-0777.2%
2025-0876.8%
2025-0970.9%
2025-1077.3%
2025-1169.3%
2025-1276.9%
2026-0170.7%
2026-0279%
2026-0377.5%
2026-0476.3%
2026-0578.9%
2026-0678.7%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Diagnostics proportion waiting over 6 weeks

23.9%

23.9% was reported for “Diagnostics proportion waiting over 6 weeks”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Diagnostics proportion waiting over 6 weeks

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0626.2%
2025-0724.6%
2025-0825.1%
2025-0922.4%
2025-1023.8%
2025-1121.1%
2025-1224.8%
2026-0124%
2026-0217.6%
2026-0318.9%
2026-0423.2%
2026-0527%
2026-0623.9%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Percentage waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment

2.7%

2.7% was reported for “Percentage waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Percentage waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-065%
2025-075.6%
2025-085.7%
2025-095.7%
2025-105%
2025-114.2%
2025-124%
2026-014%
2026-023.7%
2026-032.6%
2026-042.7%
2026-053%
2026-062.7%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Percentage waiting within 18 weeks for elective treatment

61%

61% was reported for “Percentage waiting within 18 weeks for elective treatment”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Percentage waiting within 18 weeks for elective treatment

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0650.7%
2025-0750%
2025-0850.6%
2025-0950.1%
2025-1051.9%
2025-1154.1%
2025-1254.7%
2026-0156.3%
2026-0257.9%
2026-0362.6%
2026-0461.3%
2026-0560.3%
2026-0661%

Hospital and community workforce

Reported staff capacity across the organisation and its services.

June 2026 reporting organisation

All staff groups: Full-time equivalent

4,045.4 FTE

4,045.4 FTE was reported for “All staff groups: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: All staff groups: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 04,072.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-063,910.7 FTE
2025-073,943.4 FTE
2025-083,918.1 FTE
2025-093,953.2 FTE
2025-103,996.8 FTE
2025-114,020.4 FTE
2025-124,012.2 FTE
2026-014,029.2 FTE
2026-024,024.5 FTE
2026-034,069 FTE
2026-044,072.3 FTE
2026-054,051.6 FTE
2026-064,045.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

All staff groups: Headcount

4,587 staff

4,587 staff was reported for “All staff groups: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: All staff groups: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 04,620. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-064,447 staff
2025-074,482 staff
2025-084,457 staff
2025-094,491 staff
2025-104,535 staff
2025-114,557 staff
2025-124,547 staff
2026-014,571 staff
2026-024,566 staff
2026-034,617 staff
2026-044,620 staff
2026-054,598 staff
2026-064,587 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

NHS infrastructure support: Full-time equivalent

680.3 FTE

680.3 FTE was reported for “NHS infrastructure support: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: NHS infrastructure support: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0688.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06656.2 FTE
2025-07658.4 FTE
2025-08656 FTE
2025-09664.4 FTE
2025-10670.3 FTE
2025-11663.8 FTE
2025-12662.1 FTE
2026-01670 FTE
2026-02669.9 FTE
2026-03682.6 FTE
2026-04688.2 FTE
2026-05681.8 FTE
2026-06680.3 FTE
Explore 39 additional measures

June 2026 reporting organisation

NHS infrastructure support: Headcount

807 staff

807 staff was reported for “NHS infrastructure support: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: NHS infrastructure support: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0818. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06784 staff
2025-07785 staff
2025-08783 staff
2025-09793 staff
2025-10796 staff
2025-11787 staff
2025-12785 staff
2026-01794 staff
2026-02794 staff
2026-03812 staff
2026-04818 staff
2026-05811 staff
2026-06807 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Central functions: Full-time equivalent

274.5 FTE

274.5 FTE was reported for “Central functions: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Central functions: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0276.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06269.8 FTE
2025-07270.8 FTE
2025-08270 FTE
2025-09274.9 FTE
2025-10276.7 FTE
2025-11272.5 FTE
2025-12270.7 FTE
2026-01275.3 FTE
2026-02272.6 FTE
2026-03274.1 FTE
2026-04275.9 FTE
2026-05271.6 FTE
2026-06274.5 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Central functions: Headcount

294 staff

294 staff was reported for “Central functions: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Central functions: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0296. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06290 staff
2025-07290 staff
2025-08289 staff
2025-09293 staff
2025-10295 staff
2025-11290 staff
2025-12289 staff
2026-01295 staff
2026-02292 staff
2026-03294 staff
2026-04296 staff
2026-05292 staff
2026-06294 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Hotel, property & estates: Full-time equivalent

312.9 FTE

312.9 FTE was reported for “Hotel, property & estates: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hotel, property & estates: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0316.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06293.1 FTE
2025-07293.9 FTE
2025-08294.3 FTE
2025-09296.1 FTE
2025-10298.9 FTE
2025-11297.6 FTE
2025-12294.7 FTE
2026-01299.6 FTE
2026-02302.2 FTE
2026-03313.9 FTE
2026-04315.9 FTE
2026-05316.4 FTE
2026-06312.9 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Hotel, property & estates: Headcount

418 staff

418 staff was reported for “Hotel, property & estates: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hotel, property & estates: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0423. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06396 staff
2025-07397 staff
2025-08398 staff
2025-09402 staff
2025-10402 staff
2025-11399 staff
2025-12395 staff
2026-01402 staff
2026-02405 staff
2026-03421 staff
2026-04423 staff
2026-05423 staff
2026-06418 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Managers: Full-time equivalent

56.9 FTE

56.9 FTE was reported for “Managers: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Managers: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 062.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0661.6 FTE
2025-0762.2 FTE
2025-0860.2 FTE
2025-0961.2 FTE
2025-1062.5 FTE
2025-1161.5 FTE
2025-1262.5 FTE
2026-0160.8 FTE
2026-0260.8 FTE
2026-0360.6 FTE
2026-0459.5 FTE
2026-0558.5 FTE
2026-0656.9 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Managers: Headcount

59 staff

59 staff was reported for “Managers: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Managers: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 066. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0665 staff
2025-0766 staff
2025-0864 staff
2025-0965 staff
2025-1066 staff
2025-1165 staff
2025-1266 staff
2026-0163 staff
2026-0263 staff
2026-0363 staff
2026-0462 staff
2026-0561 staff
2026-0659 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Senior managers: Full-time equivalent

36 FTE

36 FTE was reported for “Senior managers: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Senior managers: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 036.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0631.8 FTE
2025-0731.6 FTE
2025-0831.6 FTE
2025-0932.2 FTE
2025-1032.2 FTE
2025-1132.2 FTE
2025-1234.2 FTE
2026-0134.2 FTE
2026-0234.2 FTE
2026-0334 FTE
2026-0436.8 FTE
2026-0535.2 FTE
2026-0636 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Senior managers: Headcount

37 staff

37 staff was reported for “Senior managers: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Senior managers: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 038. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0633 staff
2025-0732 staff
2025-0832 staff
2025-0933 staff
2025-1033 staff
2025-1133 staff
2025-1235 staff
2026-0135 staff
2026-0235 staff
2026-0335 staff
2026-0438 staff
2026-0536 staff
2026-0637 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Professionally qualified clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

2,288.1 FTE

2,288.1 FTE was reported for “Professionally qualified clinical staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Professionally qualified clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 02,291.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-062,162.6 FTE
2025-072,191.2 FTE
2025-082,177.7 FTE
2025-092,200.1 FTE
2025-102,229.8 FTE
2025-112,263.5 FTE
2025-122,262.3 FTE
2026-012,268.3 FTE
2026-022,271.6 FTE
2026-032,289.2 FTE
2026-042,291.1 FTE
2026-052,286.3 FTE
2026-062,288.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Professionally qualified clinical staff: Headcount

2,540 staff

2,540 staff was reported for “Professionally qualified clinical staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Professionally qualified clinical staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 02,544. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-062,395 staff
2025-072,426 staff
2025-082,414 staff
2025-092,438 staff
2025-102,471 staff
2025-112,509 staff
2025-122,508 staff
2026-012,519 staff
2026-022,525 staff
2026-032,544 staff
2026-042,543 staff
2026-052,538 staff
2026-062,540 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - All grades: Full-time equivalent

574.4 FTE

574.4 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - All grades: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - All grades: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0574.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06536.9 FTE
2025-07571.7 FTE
2025-08551.9 FTE
2025-09564.6 FTE
2025-10570.9 FTE
2025-11571.5 FTE
2025-12570.7 FTE
2026-01566.7 FTE
2026-02564.6 FTE
2026-03570.1 FTE
2026-04574.1 FTE
2026-05571.7 FTE
2026-06574.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - All grades: Headcount

601 staff

601 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - All grades: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - All grades: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0601. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06557 staff
2025-07592 staff
2025-08574 staff
2025-09587 staff
2025-10594 staff
2025-11595 staff
2025-12595 staff
2026-01591 staff
2026-02590 staff
2026-03598 staff
2026-04601 staff
2026-05598 staff
2026-06601 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Full-time equivalent

10.5 FTE

10.5 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 010.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0610.5 FTE
2025-0710.5 FTE
2025-0810.5 FTE
2025-0910.5 FTE
2025-1010.5 FTE
2025-119.5 FTE
2025-129.5 FTE
2026-019.5 FTE
2026-029.5 FTE
2026-039.5 FTE
2026-0410.5 FTE
2026-0510.5 FTE
2026-0610.5 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Headcount

12 staff

12 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 012. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0612 staff
2025-0712 staff
2025-0812 staff
2025-0912 staff
2025-1012 staff
2025-1111 staff
2025-1211 staff
2026-0111 staff
2026-0211 staff
2026-0311 staff
2026-0412 staff
2026-0512 staff
2026-0612 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Consultant: Full-time equivalent

222.4 FTE

222.4 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Consultant: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Consultant: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0228.9. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06211.2 FTE
2025-07211.9 FTE
2025-08212.6 FTE
2025-09218.6 FTE
2025-10219.1 FTE
2025-11222.5 FTE
2025-12226.4 FTE
2026-01226.6 FTE
2026-02226.4 FTE
2026-03228.9 FTE
2026-04225.4 FTE
2026-05223.4 FTE
2026-06222.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Consultant: Headcount

233 staff

233 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Consultant: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Consultant: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0240. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06220 staff
2025-07221 staff
2025-08222 staff
2025-09228 staff
2025-10228 staff
2025-11232 staff
2025-12236 staff
2026-01236 staff
2026-02236 staff
2026-03240 staff
2026-04236 staff
2026-05234 staff
2026-06233 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Core Training: Full-time equivalent

88.9 FTE

88.9 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Core Training: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Core Training: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 089. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0688.5 FTE
2025-0786.5 FTE
2025-0883 FTE
2025-0984.3 FTE
2025-1086.3 FTE
2025-1188.3 FTE
2025-1287.3 FTE
2026-0186.1 FTE
2026-0281.2 FTE
2026-0383.2 FTE
2026-0488.8 FTE
2026-0589 FTE
2026-0688.9 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Core Training: Headcount

94 staff

94 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Core Training: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Core Training: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 094. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0690 staff
2025-0788 staff
2025-0886 staff
2025-0988 staff
2025-1090 staff
2025-1192 staff
2025-1291 staff
2026-0190 staff
2026-0286 staff
2026-0388 staff
2026-0494 staff
2026-0594 staff
2026-0694 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Full-time equivalent

34 FTE

34 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 068. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0633 FTE
2025-0768 FTE
2025-0835 FTE
2025-0935 FTE
2025-1035 FTE
2025-1135 FTE
2025-1235 FTE
2026-0134 FTE
2026-0235 FTE
2026-0335 FTE
2026-0435 FTE
2026-0535 FTE
2026-0634 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Headcount

34 staff

34 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 068. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0633 staff
2025-0768 staff
2025-0835 staff
2025-0935 staff
2025-1035 staff
2025-1135 staff
2025-1235 staff
2026-0134 staff
2026-0235 staff
2026-0335 staff
2026-0435 staff
2026-0535 staff
2026-0634 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Full-time equivalent

30.8 FTE

30.8 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 035. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0625.5 FTE
2025-0726 FTE
2025-0832 FTE
2025-0935 FTE
2025-1035 FTE
2025-1133 FTE
2025-1232 FTE
2026-0132 FTE
2026-0231.8 FTE
2026-0330.8 FTE
2026-0431.8 FTE
2026-0530.8 FTE
2026-0630.8 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Headcount

31 staff

31 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 035. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0626 staff
2025-0726 staff
2025-0832 staff
2025-0935 staff
2025-1035 staff
2025-1133 staff
2025-1232 staff
2026-0132 staff
2026-0232 staff
2026-0331 staff
2026-0432 staff
2026-0531 staff
2026-0631 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Full-time equivalent

98.1 FTE

98.1 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 098.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0692.5 FTE
2025-0794.3 FTE
2025-0893.3 FTE
2025-0994.4 FTE
2025-1094 FTE
2025-1193.1 FTE
2025-1292.8 FTE
2026-0191.8 FTE
2026-0292.1 FTE
2026-0394 FTE
2026-0495.1 FTE
2026-0595.1 FTE
2026-0698.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Headcount

102 staff

102 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0102. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0696 staff
2025-0798 staff
2025-0897 staff
2025-0998 staff
2025-1098 staff
2025-1197 staff
2025-1297 staff
2026-0196 staff
2026-0296 staff
2026-0398 staff
2026-0499 staff
2026-0599 staff
2026-06102 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Full-time equivalent

89.8 FTE

89.8 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 091. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0675.7 FTE
2025-0774.6 FTE
2025-0885.5 FTE
2025-0986.8 FTE
2025-1091 FTE
2025-1190.1 FTE
2025-1287.7 FTE
2026-0186.7 FTE
2026-0287.6 FTE
2026-0388.7 FTE
2026-0487.5 FTE
2026-0587.9 FTE
2026-0689.8 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Headcount

95 staff

95 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 096. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0680 staff
2025-0779 staff
2025-0890 staff
2025-0991 staff
2025-1096 staff
2025-1195 staff
2025-1293 staff
2026-0192 staff
2026-0293 staff
2026-0395 staff
2026-0493 staff
2026-0593 staff
2026-0695 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Midwives: Full-time equivalent

143.1 FTE

143.1 FTE was reported for “Midwives: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Midwives: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0158.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06158.5 FTE
2025-07155.7 FTE
2025-08151 FTE
2025-09150.9 FTE
2025-10149.6 FTE
2025-11146.1 FTE
2025-12146 FTE
2026-01146.5 FTE
2026-02146 FTE
2026-03143.2 FTE
2026-04142.2 FTE
2026-05142.6 FTE
2026-06143.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Midwives: Headcount

171 staff

171 staff was reported for “Midwives: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Midwives: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0188. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06188 staff
2025-07185 staff
2025-08180 staff
2025-09180 staff
2025-10179 staff
2025-11175 staff
2025-12175 staff
2026-01176 staff
2026-02176 staff
2026-03172 staff
2026-04171 staff
2026-05171 staff
2026-06171 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Nurses & health visitors: Full-time equivalent

1,071.4 FTE

1,071.4 FTE was reported for “Nurses & health visitors: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Nurses & health visitors: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,075.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,009.4 FTE
2025-071,008.9 FTE
2025-081,014.1 FTE
2025-091,011 FTE
2025-101,026.3 FTE
2025-111,058.2 FTE
2025-121,060.7 FTE
2026-011,067.6 FTE
2026-021,068.1 FTE
2026-031,075.2 FTE
2026-041,072.9 FTE
2026-051,070.8 FTE
2026-061,071.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Nurses & health visitors: Headcount

1,211 staff

1,211 staff was reported for “Nurses & health visitors: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Nurses & health visitors: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,216. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,142 staff
2025-071,141 staff
2025-081,146 staff
2025-091,142 staff
2025-101,158 staff
2025-111,195 staff
2025-121,197 staff
2026-011,208 staff
2026-021,210 staff
2026-031,216 staff
2026-041,212 staff
2026-051,210 staff
2026-061,211 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Full-time equivalent

499.1 FTE

499.1 FTE was reported for “Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0502. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06457.8 FTE
2025-07454.9 FTE
2025-08460.8 FTE
2025-09473.6 FTE
2025-10483 FTE
2025-11487.7 FTE
2025-12484.9 FTE
2026-01487.5 FTE
2026-02492.9 FTE
2026-03500.7 FTE
2026-04502 FTE
2026-05501.3 FTE
2026-06499.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Headcount

557 staff

557 staff was reported for “Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0560. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06508 staff
2025-07508 staff
2025-08514 staff
2025-09529 staff
2025-10540 staff
2025-11544 staff
2025-12541 staff
2026-01544 staff
2026-02549 staff
2026-03558 staff
2026-04560 staff
2026-05559 staff
2026-06557 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

1,076.9 FTE

1,076.9 FTE was reported for “Support to clinical staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,097.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,091.8 FTE
2025-071,093.7 FTE
2025-081,084.3 FTE
2025-091,088.6 FTE
2025-101,096.6 FTE
2025-111,093.1 FTE
2025-121,087.8 FTE
2026-011,090.9 FTE
2026-021,083 FTE
2026-031,097.1 FTE
2026-041,093 FTE
2026-051,083.5 FTE
2026-061,076.9 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to clinical staff: Headcount

1,245 staff

1,245 staff was reported for “Support to clinical staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to clinical staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,276. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,273 staff
2025-071,276 staff
2025-081,266 staff
2025-091,268 staff
2025-101,275 staff
2025-111,268 staff
2025-121,261 staff
2026-011,265 staff
2026-021,254 staff
2026-031,268 staff
2026-041,265 staff
2026-051,255 staff
2026-061,245 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Full-time equivalent

801.5 FTE

801.5 FTE was reported for “Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0837.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06837.6 FTE
2025-07833.9 FTE
2025-08822.6 FTE
2025-09822.8 FTE
2025-10828 FTE
2025-11824.1 FTE
2025-12824.9 FTE
2026-01825.7 FTE
2026-02816.7 FTE
2026-03821.4 FTE
2026-04818.8 FTE
2026-05810.9 FTE
2026-06801.5 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Headcount

937 staff

937 staff was reported for “Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0988. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06988 staff
2025-07985 staff
2025-08974 staff
2025-09973 staff
2025-10978 staff
2025-11970 staff
2025-12969 staff
2026-01969 staff
2026-02957 staff
2026-03961 staff
2026-04960 staff
2026-05952 staff
2026-06937 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to ST&T staff: Full-time equivalent

275.4 FTE

275.4 FTE was reported for “Support to ST&T staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to ST&T staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0275.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06254.2 FTE
2025-07259.8 FTE
2025-08261.7 FTE
2025-09265.9 FTE
2025-10268.6 FTE
2025-11269 FTE
2025-12262.9 FTE
2026-01265.3 FTE
2026-02266.3 FTE
2026-03275.7 FTE
2026-04274.2 FTE
2026-05272.6 FTE
2026-06275.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to ST&T staff: Headcount

309 staff

309 staff was reported for “Support to ST&T staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to ST&T staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RD8).

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0309. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06286 staff
2025-07292 staff
2025-08293 staff
2025-09296 staff
2025-10298 staff
2025-11299 staff
2025-12293 staff
2026-01297 staff
2026-02298 staff
2026-03308 staff
2026-04306 staff
2026-05304 staff
2026-06309 staff

For your decision These numbers do not show the staffing of a particular ward or appointment.

Infection surveillance: historical context

Historical reported infections, with surveillance definitions and reporting coverage.

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Community-onset, community-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 84 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 05. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-015 reported cases
2026-023 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

4 reported cases

4 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-104 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-034 reported cases
2026-043 reported cases
2026-053 reported cases
2026-066 reported cases
2026-074 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Community-onset, indeterminate-association

3 reported cases

3 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Community-onset, indeterminate-association”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Community-onset, indeterminate-association

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset indeterminate association (COIA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust between 29 and 84 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-073 reported cases
Explore 34 additional measures

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

3 reported cases

3 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is 3 days or more after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-083 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-013 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-063 reported cases
2026-073 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Total cases

12 reported cases

12 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 013. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-073 reported cases
2025-087 reported cases
2025-093 reported cases
2025-109 reported cases
2025-113 reported cases
2025-122 reported cases
2026-0110 reported cases
2026-024 reported cases
2026-036 reported cases
2026-045 reported cases
2026-055 reported cases
2026-0613 reported cases
2026-0712 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: The reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the 3 months prior to CDI case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Community-onset, community-associated

13 reported cases

13 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 019. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0714 reported cases
2025-0819 reported cases
2025-0915 reported cases
2025-1019 reported cases
2025-1113 reported cases
2025-127 reported cases
2026-0112 reported cases
2026-0213 reported cases
2026-0317 reported cases
2026-0410 reported cases
2026-059 reported cases
2026-0616 reported cases
2026-0713 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-086 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-012 reported cases
2026-022 reported cases
2026-033 reported cases
2026-044 reported cases
2026-054 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

4 reported cases

4 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-075 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-097 reported cases
2025-106 reported cases
2025-115 reported cases
2025-125 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-025 reported cases
2026-033 reported cases
2026-043 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-074 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Total cases

19 reported cases

19 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 027. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0720 reported cases
2025-0827 reported cases
2025-0923 reported cases
2025-1026 reported cases
2025-1118 reported cases
2025-1214 reported cases
2026-0115 reported cases
2026-0220 reported cases
2026-0323 reported cases
2026-0417 reported cases
2026-0515 reported cases
2026-0619 reported cases
2026-0719 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the E. coli case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, community-associated

3 reported cases

3 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-085 reported cases
2025-093 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-115 reported cases
2025-123 reported cases
2026-013 reported cases
2026-023 reported cases
2026-033 reported cases
2026-047 reported cases
2026-057 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-073 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-022 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-113 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-026 reported cases
2026-032 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Total cases

7 reported cases

7 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 011. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-075 reported cases
2025-087 reported cases
2025-094 reported cases
2025-104 reported cases
2025-118 reported cases
2025-125 reported cases
2026-014 reported cases
2026-0211 reported cases
2026-035 reported cases
2026-049 reported cases
2026-059 reported cases
2026-064 reported cases
2026-077 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the Klebsiella spp. case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Community-onset, community-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-122 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Total cases

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-123 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-063 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'Don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the MRSA case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Community-onset, community-associated

4 reported cases

4 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-074 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-116 reported cases
2025-126 reported cases
2026-016 reported cases
2026-022 reported cases
2026-035 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-055 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-074 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-023 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Total cases

5 reported cases

5 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 08. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-076 reported cases
2025-083 reported cases
2025-093 reported cases
2025-106 reported cases
2025-117 reported cases
2025-127 reported cases
2026-016 reported cases
2026-025 reported cases
2026-036 reported cases
2026-044 reported cases
2026-058 reported cases
2026-063 reported cases
2026-075 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the MSSA case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, community-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 05. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-075 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-032 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Total cases

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 05. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-075 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-113 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-023 reported cases
2026-032 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-053 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the P. aeruginosa case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

For your decision Raw counts cannot rank hospitals with different sizes and patient groups.

National infection context and why counts cannot rank hospitals

Organisation environment: PLACE assessments

Environment assessments reported across an organisation, potentially covering several sites.

2025 reporting organisation

Cleanliness assessment

98.8%

98.8% was reported for “Cleanliness assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cleanliness assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Condition Appearance and Maintenance assessment

97.7%

97.7% was reported for “Condition Appearance and Maintenance assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Condition Appearance and Maintenance assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Dementia assessment

69.5%

69.5% was reported for “Dementia assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dementia assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

Explore 5 additional measures

2025 reporting organisation

Disability assessment

74.5%

74.5% was reported for “Disability assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Disability assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Food assessment

91.2%

91.2% was reported for “Food assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Food assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Organisation Food assessment

94.6%

94.6% was reported for “Organisation Food assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Organisation Food assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Privacy, Dignity and Wellbeing assessment

80.1%

80.1% was reported for “Privacy, Dignity and Wellbeing assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Privacy, Dignity and Wellbeing assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Ward Food assessment

90.4%

90.4% was reported for “Ward Food assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ward Food assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

For your decision Confirm the arrangements at the exact building you will attend.

Hospital mortality indicators and their limitations

A statistical mortality indicator that needs the publisher’s interpretation and context.

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Statistical expected deaths in SHMI cohort

1,270 expected deaths

1,270 expected deaths was reported for “Statistical expected deaths in SHMI cohort”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Statistical expected deaths in SHMI cohort

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RD8).

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Observed deaths in SHMI cohort

1,455 deaths

1,455 deaths was reported for “Observed deaths in SHMI cohort”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Observed deaths in SHMI cohort

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RD8).

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator

1.1 ratio

1.1 ratio was reported for “Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RD8).

Publisher over-dispersion control limits (not a confidence interval): 0.81.2 ratio.

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

Explore 1 additional measures

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Hospital provider spells in SHMI cohort

45,395 spells

45,395 spells was reported for “Hospital provider spells in SHMI cohort”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hospital provider spells in SHMI cohort

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: MILTON KEYNES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RD8).

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

For your decision Do not use this measure alone to judge safety or predict an individual outcome.

About this organisation

Recorded care types
NHS trusts, Provider groups
Local authority area
Milton Keynes
Funding information
NHS organisation — confirm the service’s funding
NHS organisation code
RD8
CQC identifier
RD8

CQC inspection evidence

Keep the publication date and assessed service in view. Ratings are reproduced as categories; they are not averaged into a score.

AssessmentRatingPublished
CaringGood30 July 2019
Combined Quality RatingGood30 July 2019
EffectiveGood30 July 2019
OverallGood30 July 2019
ResponsiveGood30 July 2019
SafeRequires improvement30 July 2019
Use of ResourcesRequires improvement30 July 2019
Well-ledGood29 November 2016

Service evidence

Connected organisations and services

Sources and coverage

Source changes may take time to appear here. Suggest a correction · Represent this provider