Establishing and sustaining health observatories serving urbanized populations around the world: scoping study and survey.

BACKGROUND: The 'health observatory' model has successfully proliferated across several world regions, this study being conducted to define the geographical and physical bases and main functions of health observatories serving largely urbanized populations and the support needed for set-up and sustainability. METHODS: A scoping study of literature and observatory websites was undertaken to identify health observatories, main functions, year established and publications, followed by a self-completion survey to further investigate these characteristics, define the help observatories would have liked at set-up and later on, and how such help might effectively be accessed. RESULTS: Of 69 health observatories contacted, 27 (39%) mainly established since 2000 completed the survey. Most responding observatories had a sub-national/regional or sub-regional/local geographical base and no one type of physical or organizational base predominated. Nearly all observatories undertook preparation of population-based health reports and intelligence, data analysis and interpretation services, and a primary commitment to working with local/regional partners to support evidence-based decision-making. Most prioritized help with deciding and defining the scope of the observatory, estimating the core resources required for establishing/developing it, addressing sustainability issues, identifying knowledge, skills and skill-mix required to undertake the health intelligence/analytic functions, accessing data/IT expertise and developing training and capacity-building programmes. The preferred means of accessing this support was a virtual network(s) of experts on particular topics to support mutual learning and toolboxes developed for specific observatory functions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the health observatory as an organizational model is maturing, the learning derived from sharing structured guidance and support is regarded as invaluable.

Sepsis-associated mortality in England: an analysis of multiple cause of death data from 2001 to 2010.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify mortality associated with sepsis in the whole population of England. DESIGN: Descriptive statistics of multiple cause of death data. SETTING: England between 2001 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS: All people whose death was registered in England between 2001 and 2010 and whose certificate contained a sepsis-associated International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code. DATA SOURCES: Multiple cause of death data extracted from Office for National Statistics mortality database. STATISTICAL METHODS: Age-specific and sex-specific death rates and direct age-standardised death rates. RESULTS: In 2010, 5.1% of deaths in England were definitely associated with sepsis. Adding those that may be associated with sepsis increases this figure to 7.7% of all deaths. Only 8.6% of deaths definitely associated with sepsis in 2010 had a sepsis-related condition as the underlying cause of death. 99% of deaths definitely associated with sepsis have one of the three ICD-10 codes-A40, A41 and P36-in at least one position on the death certificate. 7% of deaths definitely associated with sepsis in 2001-2010 did not occur in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is a major public health problem in England. In attempting to tackle the problem of sepsis, it is not sufficient to rely on hospital-based statistics, or methods of intervention, alone. A robust estimate of the burden of sepsis-associated mortality in England can be made by identifying deaths with one of the three ICD-10 codes in multiple cause of death data. These three codes could be used for future monitoring of the burden of sepsis-associated mortality.

Why poor quality of ethnicity data should not preclude its use for identifying disparities in health and healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Data of quality are needed to identify ethnic disparities in health and healthcare and to meet the challenges in governance of race relations. Yet concerns over completeness, accuracy and timeliness have been long-standing and inhibitive with respect to the analytical use of the data. AIMS: To identify incompleteness of ethnicity data across routine health and healthcare datasets and to investigate the utility of analytical strategies for using data that is of suboptimal quality. METHODS: An analysis by government office regions of ethnicity data incompleteness in routine datasets and a comprehensive review and evaluation of the literature on appropriate analytical strategies to address the use of such data. RESULTS: There is only limited availability of ethnically coded routine datasets on health and healthcare, with substantial variability in valid ethnic coding: although a few have high levels of completeness, the majority are poor (notably hospital episode statistics, drug treatment data and non-medical workforce). In addition, there is also a more than twofold regional difference in quality. Organisational factors seem to be the main contributor to the differentials, and these are amenable-yet, in practice, difficult-to change. This article discusses the strengths and limitations of a variety of analytical strategies for using data of suboptimal quality and explores how they may answer important unresolved questions in relation to ethnic inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Only by using the data, even when of suboptimal quality, and remaining close to it can healthcare organisations drive up quality.

Managing health inequalities locally: a baseline survey of primary care trusts' experience with health equity audit in the implementation year.

Health equity audit (HEA), a pragmatic policy tool to ensure that services and resources are focused on issues that have the highest impact on health inequalities, has now become embedded in the national strategy to tackle these inequalities through a new mandatory requirement that primary care trusts (PCTs) conduct one such audit annually. This study aimed to assess their experience through a national baseline survey in 2004, all PCTs (n = 303) being electronically mailed a questionnaire with non-respondent follow-up. Replies were received from 132 PCTs (44%), a representative sample of PCT diversity, most of whom had completed only a few steps in the audit cycle. Audit topics (most frequently coronary heart disease, smoking cessation, and access issues) and dimensions of inequity (mainly area and deprivation) were agreed through only limited engagement with local strategic partnerships. Local public health networks and multiagency teams were infrequent partners in undertaking the HEA. Most PCTs wanted comparator data, good practice examples, and specific methodological expertise. While significant progress has been made, this survey shows only limited use of HEA as a tool for multisectoral use by PCTs in partnership with others and a focus on intra-PCT comparisons at the expense of those with a wider pool of 'look-a-likes'.