Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

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

Reported sample: 159.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.4–8.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 182.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.4–7.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 429.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 9.1–9.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 420.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.3–9.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 459.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.7–9.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 451.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.4–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 420.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.2–9.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 458.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.7–9.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 454.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.3–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 119.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6–7.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 457.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7–8.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 414.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.3–8.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 431.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.8–7.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 446.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.6–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 392.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.3–8.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 451.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 9.2–9.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.5–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 412.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.9–8.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.5–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 40.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.3–9.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 193.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.9–9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 110.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.1–8.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 84.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.2–7.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 44.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.5–8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 46.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.3–8.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 443.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.2–7.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Much better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.2–6.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 220.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.7–8.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 455.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.4–7.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 429.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.2–8.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.8–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 274.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.5–7.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 350.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 3.8–5.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 120.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7–8.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.1–7.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 417.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.9–8.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 258.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.3–8.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 305.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.7–7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 460.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.7–9.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 458.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.8–9.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 458.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.8–8.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: 439.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.8–7.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 444.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.8–7.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 444.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.9–9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 444.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8–8.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 444.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.7–9.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 444.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 3.1–4.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 455.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.5–9.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

Reported sample: 327.

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.6–8.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.4–7.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.7–9.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.1–8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.6–8.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.5–9.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.1–8.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8–8.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7–8.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.1–8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RTF). Publisher comparison band: Better.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.6–7.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

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

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

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

Published measure: Plastic 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: Other - Mental Health 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

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

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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 6,658; 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

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,869; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 10,664; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,584; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,077; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,647; 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

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,372; 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

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,587; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,828; 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

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2; 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

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,098; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 666; 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

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,636; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 190; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,247; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 317; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 6,658; 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

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,869; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 10,664; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,584; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,077; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,647; 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

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,372; 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

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,587; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,828; 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

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2; 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

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,098; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 666; 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

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,636; 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

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 39,442; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 190; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,247; 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

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

The calculation uses a denominator of 317; 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: Plastic 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

Published measure: Plastic 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: Elderly 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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: Other - Mental Health 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

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

Published measure: Other - Paediatric 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

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

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

Published measure: DEXA_SCAN: 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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: PERIPHERAL_NEUROPHYS: 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

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

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

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

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 256; 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

Published measure: CT: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,402; 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

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 391; 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

Published measure: DEXA_SCAN: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 757; 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

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,083; 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

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 113; 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

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 433; 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

Published measure: MRI: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 3,158; 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

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 7,012; 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

Published measure: PERIPHERAL_NEUROPHYS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 171; 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

Published measure: SLEEP_STUDIES: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 196; 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

Published measure: TOTAL: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 15,982; 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

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 10; 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

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

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

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

Published measure: DEXA_SCAN: 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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: PERIPHERAL_NEUROPHYS: 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

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

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

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 32.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

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

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 27.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 34.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 28.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 26.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 29.

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: RTF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published measure: Number of closed suspected autism referrals in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of closed suspected autism referrals for those aged 0 to 17 in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month per 100,000 of the population

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks per 100,000 of the population

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month per 100,000 of the population

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks per 100,000 of the population

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks receiving a first appointment in 13 weeks or less

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks receiving a first appointment after more than 13 weeks

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks that have not had a care contact appointment recorded

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks receiving a first appointment in 13 weeks or less

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks receiving a first appointment after more than 13 weeks

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral in the month that has been open for at least 13 weeks that have not had a care contact appointment recorded

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients which have an open suspected autism referral in the month receiving at least one care contact in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 which have an open suspected autism referral in the month receiving at least one care contact in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral receiving an autism diagnosis in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral receiving an autism diagnosis in the month

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients with an open suspected autism referral receiving a Mental and Behavioural disorder diagnosis in the month that is not an autism diagnosis

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral receiving a Mental and Behavioural disorder diagnosis in the month that is not an autism diagnosis

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Median waiting time in days of patients with an open suspected autism referral where their first care contact was in the quarter

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Median waiting time in days of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral where their first care contact was in the quarter

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of open referrals of patients with an open suspected autism referral where their first care contact was in the quarter

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: Number of open referrals of patients aged 0 to 17 with an open suspected autism referral where their first care contact was in the quarter

MHSDS suspected-autism referral measures. Community paediatric assessments reported through CSDS are not included; this is incomplete pathway coverage. First care contact does not mean assessment completion or diagnosis. Referrals and patients are different counts. Small counts are suppressed/rounded; no subtraction or sum is used to reconstruct them. Source reporting status: Latest Available Data. Check source data-quality comments before comparing providers.

Autism statistics · Coverage and method

Published measure: (A) Home oxygen assessment services: Total waiting list

Community health services waiting-list return. Counts describe waiting lists, not necessarily unique people. Coverage varies with submissions; a blank indicates no submitted service figure. Waiting bands describe elapsed waits and do not forecast the remaining wait or confirm a local offer. Provider figures can span multiple sites. Safeguarding breakdowns are withheld locally by the publisher. Source reporting unit: NORTHUMBRIA HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST.

Community health waiting lists · Coverage and method

Published measure: (A) Nursing and Therapy support for LTCs: Heart failure: Total waiting list

Community health services waiting-list return. Counts describe waiting lists, not necessarily unique people. Coverage varies with submissions; a blank indicates no submitted service figure. Waiting bands describe elapsed waits and do not forecast the remaining wait or confirm a local offer. Provider figures can span multiple sites. Safeguarding breakdowns are withheld locally by the publisher. Source reporting unit: NORTHUMBRIA HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST.

Community health waiting lists · Coverage and method

Published measure: (A) Nursing and Therapy support for LTCs: MS: Total waiting list

Community health services waiting-list return. Counts describe waiting lists, not necessarily unique people. Coverage varies with submissions; a blank indicates no submitted service figure. Waiting bands describe elapsed waits and do not forecast the remaining wait or confirm a local offer. Provider figures can span multiple sites. Safeguarding breakdowns are withheld locally by the publisher. Source reporting unit: NORTHUMBRIA HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST.

Community health waiting lists · Coverage and method