NHS Digital Data Release Register - reformatted

NHS South Yorkshire Icb - 02x projects

5 data files in total were disseminated unsafely (information about files used safely is missing for TRE/"system access" projects).


DSfC - South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw ICS - Comm — DARS-NIC-627125-B9N0Z

Opt outs honoured: Anonymised - ICO Code Compliant (Does not include the flow of confidential data)

Legal basis: Health and Social Care Act 2012 - s261 - 'Other dissemination of information'

Purposes: No (Sub ICB Location)

Sensitive: Sensitive

When:DSA runs 2022-03-18 — 2025-03-17

Access method: Frequent Adhoc Flow

Data-controller type: NHS SOUTH YORKSHIRE ICB - 02P, NHS SOUTH YORKSHIRE ICB - 02X, NHS SOUTH YORKSHIRE ICB - 03L, NHS SOUTH YORKSHIRE ICB - 03N

Sublicensing allowed: No

Datasets:

  1. Acute-Local Provider Flows
  2. Adult Social Care
  3. Ambulance-Local Provider Flows
  4. Children and Young People Health
  5. Civil Registration - Births
  6. Civil Registration - Deaths
  7. Community Services Data Set
  8. Community-Local Provider Flows
  9. Demand for Service-Local Provider Flows
  10. Diagnostic Imaging Dataset
  11. Diagnostic Services-Local Provider Flows
  12. Emergency Care-Local Provider Flows
  13. e-Referral Service for Commissioning
  14. Experience, Quality and Outcomes-Local Provider Flows
  15. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Data Set_v1.5
  16. Maternity Services Data Set
  17. Medicines dispensed in Primary Care (NHSBSA data)
  18. Mental Health and Learning Disabilities Data Set
  19. Mental Health Minimum Data Set
  20. Mental Health Services Data Set
  21. Mental Health-Local Provider Flows
  22. National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring DataSet (NCWTMDS)
  23. National Diabetes Audit
  24. Other Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC)-Local Provider Flows
  25. Patient Reported Outcome Measures
  26. Personal Demographic Service
  27. Population Data-Local Provider Flows
  28. Primary Care Services-Local Provider Flows
  29. Public Health and Screening Services-Local Provider Flows
  30. Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator
  31. SUS for Commissioners

Expected Benefits:

1. Supporting Quality Innovation Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) to review demand management, integrated care and pathways.
a. Analysis to support full business cases.
b. Develop business models.
c. Monitor In year projects.
2. Supporting Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for specific disease types.
3. Health economic modelling using:
a. Analysis on provider performance against 18 weeks wait targets.
b. Learning from and predicting likely patient pathways for certain conditions, in order to influence early interventions and other treatments for patients.
c. Analysis of outcome measures for differential treatments, accounting for the full patient pathway.
d. Analysis to understand emergency care and linking A&E and Emergency Urgent Care Flows (EUCC).
4. Commissioning cycle support for grouping and re-costing previous activity.
5. Enables monitoring of:
a. CCG outcome indicators.
b. Financial and Non-financial validation of activity.
c. Successful delivery of integrated care within the CCG.
d. Checking frequent or multiple attendances to improve early intervention and avoid admissions.
e. Case management.
f. Care service planning.
g. Commissioning and performance management.
h. List size verification by GP practices.
i. Understanding the care of patients in nursing homes.
6. Feedback to NHS service providers on data quality at an aggregate and individual record level – only on data initially provided by the service providers.
7. Improved planning by better understanding patient flows through the healthcare system, thus allowing commissioners to design appropriate pathways to improve patient flow and allowing commissioners to identify priorities and identify plans to address these.
8. Improved quality of services through reduced emergency readmissions, especially avoidable emergency admissions. This is achieved through mapping of frequent users of emergency services and early intervention of appropriate care.
9. Improved access to services by identifying which services may be in demand but have poor access, and from this identify areas where improvement is required.
10. Potentially reduced premature mortality by more targeted intervention in primary care, which supports the commissioner to meets its requirement to reduce premature mortality in line with the CCG Outcome Framework.
11. Better understanding of the health of and the variations in health outcomes within the population to help understand local population characteristics.
12. Better understanding of contract requirements, contract execution, and required services for management of existing contracts, and to assist with identification and planning of future contracts
13. Insights into patient outcomes, and identification of the possible efficacy of outcomes-based contracting opportunities.
14. Providing greater understanding of the underlying courses and look to commission improved supportive networks, this would be ongoing work which would be continually assessed.
15. Insight to understand the numerous factors that play a role in the outcome for multiple datasets. The linkage will allow the reporting both prior to, during and after the activity, to provide greater assurance on predictive outcomes and delivery of best practice.
16. Provision of indicators of health problems, and patterns of risk within the commissioning region.
17. Support of benchmarking for evaluating progress in future years.
18. Allow reporting to drive changes and improve the quality of commissioned services and health outcomes for people.
19. Assists commissioners to make better decisions to support patients and drive changes in health care
20. Allows comparisons of providers performance to assist improvement in services – increase the quality
21. Allow analysis of health care provision to be completed to support the needs of the health profile of the population within the CCG area based on the full analysis of multiple pseudonymised datasets.
22. To evaluate the impact of new services and innovations (e.g. if commissioners implement a new service or type of procedure with a provider, they can evaluate whether it improves outcomes for patients compared to the previous one).
23. Monitoring of entire population, as opposed to only those that engage with services
24. Enable Commissioners to be able to see early indications of potential practice resilience issues in that an early warning marker can often be a trend of patients re-registering themselves at a neighbouring practice.
25. Monitor the quality and safety of the delivery of healthcare services.
26. Allow focused commissioning support based on factual data rather than assumed and projected sources
27. Understand admissions linked to overprescribing.
28. Add value to the population health management workstream by adding prescribing data into linked dataset for segmentation and stratification.
29. Developing, through evaluation of person-level data, more effective prevention strategies and interventions across a pathway or care setting involving adult social care
30. Designing and implementing new payment models across health and adult social care
31. Understanding current and future population needs and resource utilisation for local strategic planning and commissioning purposes including for health, social care and public health needs.

Outputs:

1. Commissioner reporting:
a. Summary by provider view - plan & actuals year to date (YTD).
b. Summary by Patient Outcome Data (POD) view - plan & actuals YTD.
c. Summary by provider view - activity & finance variance by POD.
d. Planned care by provider view - activity & finance plan & actuals YTD.
e. Planned care by POD view - activity plan & actuals YTD.
f. Provider reporting.
g. Statutory returns.
h. Statutory returns - monthly activity return.
i. Statutory returns - quarterly activity return.
j. Delayed discharges.
k. Quality & performance referral to treatment reporting.
2. Readmissions analysis.
3. Production of aggregate reports for CCG Business Intelligence.
4. Production of project / programme level dashboards.
5. Monitoring of acute / community / mental health quality matrix.
6. Clinical coding reviews / audits.
7. Budget reporting down to individual GP Practice level.
8. GP Practice level dashboard reports.
9. Comparators of CCG performance with similar CCGs as set out by a specific range of care quality and performance measures detailed activity and cost reports
10. Data Quality and Validation measures allowing data quality checks on the submitted data
11. Contract Management and Modelling
12. Patient Stratification, such as:
o Patients at highest risk of admission
o High cost activity uses (top 15%)
o Frail and elderly
o Patients that are currently in hospital
o Patients with most referrals to secondary care
o Patients with most emergency activity
o Patients with most expensive prescriptions
o Patients recently moving from one care setting to another
i. Discharged from hospital
ii. Discharged from community
13. Validation for payment approval, ability to validate that claims are not being made after an individual has died, like Oxygen services.
14. Validation of programs implemented to improve patient pathway e.g. High users unable to validate if the process to help patients find the best support are working or did the patient die.
15. Clinical - understand reasons why patients are dying, what additional support services can be put in to support.
16. Understanding where patient are dying e.g. are patients dying at hospitals due to hospices closing due to Local authorities withdrawing support, or is there a problem at a particular trust.
17. Removal of patients from Risk Stratification reports.
18. Re births provide a one stop shop of information, Births are recorded in multiple sources covering hospital and home births, a chance to overlook activity.
19. Manage demand, by understanding the quantity of assessments required CCGs are able to improve the care service for patients by predicting the impact on certain care pathways and ensure the secondary care system has enough capacity to manage the demand.
20. Monitor the timing of key actions relating to referral letters. CCG’s are unable to see the contents of the referral letters.
21. Identify low priority procedures which could be directed to community-based alternatives and as such commission these services and deflect referrals for low priority procedures resulting in a reduction in hospital referrals.
22. Allow Commissioners to better protect or improve the public health of the total local patient population
23. Allow Commissioners to plan, evaluate and monitor health and social care policies, services, or interventions for the total local patient population
24. Allow Commissioners to compare their providers (trusts) mortality outcomes to the national baseline.
25. Investigate mortality outcomes for trusts.
26. Identify medication prescribing trends and their effectiveness.
27. Linking prescribing habits to entry points into the health and social care system
28. Identify, quantify and understand cohorts of patient’s high numbers of different medications (polypharmacy)
29. Monitoring, at a population level, particular cohorts of service users and designing analytical models which support more effective interventions in health and adult social care
30. Monitoring service and integrated care outcomes across a pathway or care setting involving adult social care

Processing:

PROCESSING CONDITIONS:
Data must only be used for the purposes stipulated within this Data Sharing Agreement. Any additional disclosure / publication will require further approval from NHS Digital.

Data Processors must only act upon specific instructions from the Data Controller.

Data can only be stored at the addresses listed under storage addresses.

All access to data is managed under Role-Based Access Controls. Users can only access data authorised by their role and the tasks that they are required to undertake.

Patient level data will not be linked other than as specifically detailed within this Data Sharing Agreement. Data released will only be shared with those parties listed and will only be used for the purposes laid out in the application/agreement.

NHS Digital reminds all organisations party to this agreement of the need to comply with the Data Sharing Framework Contract requirements, including those regarding the use (and purposes of that use) by “Personnel” (as defined within the Data Sharing Framework Contract ie: employees, agents and contractors of the Data Recipient who may have access to that data)

ONWARD SHARING:
In the development of cohorts of pseudonymised patients considered to be at risk, the data controllers may need the facility to provide identifiable results back to direct health or care professionals for the purpose of direct care. Additionally clinicians, made aware of a number of cases that they believe would need intervention may request re-identification for that direct care purpose. These instances of re-identification will generally be carried out as programmes of work or, rarely, on an individual/small group basis.

NHS Digital provides a re-identification service for this process. All re-id requests will be processed and authorised by NHS Digital on a case by case basis. National data opt outs are not applied in these cases as they are for the purposes of direct care which follows the legal basis of implied consent.

The following are typical examples of instances where a CCG might want to use the re-identification process:

A&E High Attendance usage
The CCG can filter data to show for example the number of A&E attendances in a given period for each patient. The CCG can then flag to the relevant GP of the patient any patients that require intervention. An outcome of this is earlier intervention in the patient(s) care thus potentially reducing future costs and minimising future risk.

Polypharmacy re-IDs
CCGs can request re-ID of a list of patients to be sent to the relevant GP with a high number of medications (ingredient count) and review the medication for these patients. This can help address the risk of polypharmacy which is recognised as an adverse risk factor for patient safety. A by-product of such reviews may be to reduce costs of medication.

The Re-identification process for direct care is as follows:
1. The CCG identifies a patient cohort to be re-identified for the purpose of direct care.
2. The CCG sends a re-id request to the DSCRO. This may be done through the CCG or CSU’s Business Intelligence (BI) Tool, or through a manual form.
3. The DSCRO assesses as to whether the request passes the specified re-identification process checks. Checks include if the requester is authorised to access identifiable data, if the number of patients in the cohort is appropriate, and that the request does not seem inappropriate or outside of expected parameters, including for example around timings and the requestor’s relationship with patients in the data. These checks are carried out either by DSCRO staff using pre-approved information (timing’s, requester’s identity etc) or via an automated system.
4. For automated systems, steps 1 - 3 wouldn’t apply in most cases as it would be the direct care professional who identifies the cohort and as long as they are an approved re-id user and have gone through security checks initially, they will be able to re-id without further checks.
5. If successful/approved, the DSCRO re-identifies the relevant data item(s) for the appropriate patients and returns the identifiable fields to Health or Care professional(s) with a legitimate relationship to the patient. The CCG does not see the identifiable record.
6. DSCROs retain an audit trail of all re-id requests

Aggregated reports only with small number suppression can be shared externally as set out within NHS Digital guidance applicable to each data set.

SEGREGATION:
Where the Data Processor and/or the Data Controller hold both identifiable and pseudonymised data, the data will be held separately so data cannot be linked.

Where the Data Processor and/or the Data Controller hold identifiable data with opt outs applied and identifiable data with opt outs not applied, the data will be held separately so data cannot be linked.

All access to data is auditable by NHS Digital.

DATA MINIMISATION:
Data Minimisation in relation to the data sets listed within the application are listed below. This also includes the purpose on which they would be applied -

For the purpose of Commissioning:
• Patients who are normally registered and/or resident within the CCGs region (including historical activity where the patient was previously registered or resident in another commissioner).
and/or
• Patients treated by a provider where the CCGs are the host/co-ordinating commissioner and/or has the primary responsibility for the provider services in the local health economy – this is only for commissioning and relates to both national and local flows.
and/or
• Activity identified by the provider and recorded as such within national systems (such as SUS+) as for the attention of the CCGs - this is only for commissioning and relates to both national and local flows.
and/or
• Patients treated by a provider where the CCG have joint responsibility for the provider services in the local health economy – this is only for Ambulance Trust data

In addition to the dissemination of Cancer Waiting Times Data via the DSCRO, the CCG is able to access reports held within the CWT system in NHS Digital directly. Access within the CCG is limited to those with a need to process the data for the purposes described in this agreement.

A CCG user will be able to access the provider extracts from the portal for any provider where at least 1 patient for whom they are the registered CCG for that individuals GP practice appears in that setting

Although a CCG user may have access to pseudonymised patient information not related to that CCG, users should only process and analyse data for which they have a legitimate relationship (as described within Data Minimisation).

Microsoft Limited provide Cloud Services for NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit and are therefore listed as a data processor. They supply support to the system, but do not access data. Therefore, any access to the data held under this agreement would be considered a breach of the agreement. This includes granting of access to the database[s] containing the data

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd provide Cloud Services for NHS Sheffield CCG and NHS Barnsley CCG under the controls of North of England Commissioning Support Unit and are therefore listed as a data processor. They supply support to the system, but do not access data. Therefore, any access to the data held under this agreement would be considered a breach of the agreement. This includes granting of access to the database[s] containing the data.

Database Service Provider Global LTD will be providing NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit with support for the Oracle platform, including database administration support, and are therefore listed as a data processor. Using the data for any other purpose would be considered a breach of this agreement.

Pulsant and IT Professional Services Ltd do not access data held under this agreement as they only supply the building. Therefore, any access to the data held under this agreement would be considered a breach of the agreement. This includes granting of access to the database[s] containing the data.

COMMISSIONING
The Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office (DSCRO) obtains the following data sets:
1. SUS+
2. Local Provider Flows (received directly from providers)
a. Acute
b. Ambulance
c. Community
d. Demand for Service
e. Diagnostic Service
f. Emergency Care
g. Experience, Quality and Outcomes
h. Mental Health
i. Other Not Elsewhere Classified
j. Population Data
k. Primary Care Services
l. Public Health Screening
3. Mental Health Minimum Data Set (MHMDS)
4. Mental Health Learning Disability Data Set (MHLDDS)
5. Mental Health Services Data Set (MHSDS)
6. Maternity Services Data Set (MSDS)
7. Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT)
8. Child and Young People Health Service (CYPHS)
9. Community Services Data Set (CSDS)
10. Diagnostic Imaging Data Set (DIDS)
11. National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Data Set (CWT)
12. Civil Registries Data (CRD) (Births)
13. Civil Registries Data (CRD) (Deaths)
14. National Diabetes Audit (NDA)
15. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
16. e-Referral Service (eRS)
17. Personal Demographics Service (PDS)
18. Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI)
19. Medicines Dispensed in Primary Care (NHSBSA Data)
20. Adult Social Care Data

Data quality management and pseudonymisation is completed within the DSCRO and is then disseminated as follows:

Data Processor 1 – NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit
1. Pseudonymised SUS+, Local Provider data, Mental Health data (MHSDS, MHMDS, MHLDDS), Maternity data (MSDS), Improving Access to Psychological Therapies data (IAPT), Child and Young People’s Health data (CYPHS), Community Services Data Set (CSDS), Diagnostic Imaging data (DIDS), National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Data Set (CWT), Civil Registries Data (CRD) (Births and Deaths), National Diabetes Audit (NDA), Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), e-Referral Service (eRS), Personal Demographics Service (PDS), Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI), Medicines Dispensed in Primary Care (NHSBSA Data) and Adult Social Care data only is securely transferred from the DSCRO to NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit.
2. NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit add derived fields by using existing data, link data and provide analysis to:
a. See patient journeys for pathways or service design, re-design and de-commissioning.
b. Check recorded activity against contracts or invoices and facilitate discussions with providers.
c. Undertake population health management
d. Undertake data quality and validation checks
e. Thoroughly investigate the needs of the population
f. Understand cohorts of residents who are at risk
g. Conduct Health Needs Assessments
3. Allowed linkage is between the data sets contained within point 1.
4. NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit then pass the processed, pseudonymised and linked data to the CCGs.
5. Aggregation of required data for CCG management use will be completed by NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit or the CCGs as instructed by the CCGs.
6. Patient level data will not be shared outside of the CCGs and will only be shared within the CCGs on a need to know basis, as per the purposes stipulated within the Data Sharing Agreement. External aggregated reports only with small number suppression can be shared as set out within NHS Digital guidance applicable to each data set.


DSfC - NHS Doncaster CCG - IV & Comm — DARS-NIC-86861-K1L1N

Opt outs honoured: N, Y, No - data flow is not identifiable, Yes - patient objections upheld, No - DSfC for Invoice Validation Purposes, Anonymised - ICO Code Compliant, Identifiable (Section 251, Section 251 NHS Act 2006, Mixture of confidential data flow(s) with support under section 251 NHS Act 2006 and non-confidential data flow(s))

Legal basis: Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(1) and s261(2)(b)(ii), Section 251 approval is in place for the flow of identifiable data, National Health Service Act 2006 - s251 - 'Control of patient information'. , Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(1) and s261(2)(b)(ii), Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(7); National Health Service Act 2006 - s251 - 'Control of patient information'., Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(2)(b)(ii), Health and Social Care Act 2012 - s261 - 'Other dissemination of information'

Purposes: No (Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Sub ICB Location)

Sensitive: Sensitive

When:DSA runs 2019-04-20 — 2022-04-19 2018.06 — 2021.05.

Access method: Frequent adhoc flow, Frequent Adhoc Flow, One-Off

Data-controller type: NHS DONCASTER CCG, NHS SOUTH YORKSHIRE ICB - 02X

Sublicensing allowed: No

Datasets:

  1. Acute-Local Provider Flows
  2. Ambulance-Local Provider Flows
  3. Children and Young People Health
  4. Community-Local Provider Flows
  5. Demand for Service-Local Provider Flows
  6. Diagnostic Imaging Dataset
  7. Diagnostic Services-Local Provider Flows
  8. Emergency Care-Local Provider Flows
  9. Experience, Quality and Outcomes-Local Provider Flows
  10. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Data Set
  11. Maternity Services Data Set
  12. Mental Health and Learning Disabilities Data Set
  13. Mental Health Minimum Data Set
  14. Mental Health Services Data Set
  15. Mental Health-Local Provider Flows
  16. Other Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC)-Local Provider Flows
  17. Population Data-Local Provider Flows
  18. Primary Care Services-Local Provider Flows
  19. Public Health and Screening Services-Local Provider Flows
  20. SUS for Commissioners
  21. Community Services Data Set
  22. National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring DataSet (CWT)
  23. Civil Registration - Births
  24. Civil Registration - Deaths
  25. National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring DataSet (NCWTMDS)
  26. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Data Set_v1.5
  27. Adult Social Care
  28. e-Referral Service for Commissioning
  29. Medicines dispensed in Primary Care (NHSBSA data)
  30. National Diabetes Audit
  31. Patient Reported Outcome Measures
  32. Personal Demographic Service
  33. Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator

Objectives:

Invoice Validation
As an approved Controlled Environment for Finance (CEfF), the CCG receives SUS data identifiable at the level of NHS number according to S.251 CAG 7-07(a) and (b)/2013. The data is required for the purpose of invoice validation. The NHS number is only used to confirm the accuracy of backing-data sets and will not be shared outside of the CEfF.

Risk Stratification
To use SUS data identifiable at the level of NHS number according to S.251 CAG 7-04(a) (and Primary Care Data) for the purpose of Risk Stratification. Risk Stratification provides a forecast of future demand by identifying high risk patients. This enables commissioners to initiate proactive management plans for patients that are potentially high service users. Risk Stratification enables GPs to better target intervention in Primary Care

Pseudonymised – SUS and Local Flows - Commissioning
To use pseudonymised data to provide intelligence to support commissioning of health services. The pseudonymised data is required to ensure that analysis of health care provision can be completed to support the needs of the health profile of the population within the CCG area based on the full analysis of multiple pseudonymised datasets.
The CCG commissions services from a range of providers covering a wide array of services. Each of the data flow categories requested supports the commissioned activity of one or more providers.

Pseudonymised – Mental Health, Maternity, IAPT, CYPHS and DIDS - Commissioning
To use pseudonymised data for the following datasets to provide intelligence to support commissioning of health services :
- Mental Health Minimum Data Set (MHMDS)
- Mental Health Learning Disability Data Set (MHLDDS)
- Mental Health Services Data Set (MHSDS)
- Maternity Services Data Set (MSDS)
- Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT)
- Child and Young People Health Service (CYPHS)
- Diagnostic Imaging Data Set (DIDS)
The pseudonymised data is required to ensure that analysis of health care provision can be completed to support the needs of the health profile of the population within the CCG area based on the full analysis of multiple pseudonymised datasets.

Pseudonymised – SUS - Commissioning
PI Health and Care Ltd receive pseudonymised SUS data from the DSCRO and pseudonymised Social Care Data from Doncaster Council. PI Health and Care Ltd link and process the data in order for the CCG to provide a range of commissioning intelligence that is linked to local partnership priorities and to support the approach to measuring activity, outcome and financial impact of local Better Care Fund schemes and Sustainability and Transformation Plan.
Data is a vital asset, both for the provision of services and for the efficient management of services and resources. It is therefore essential that the data the CCG hold is intelligently analysed and leveraged to inform strategic commissioning decisions, assist with the evaluation of project outcomes and to enable a culture of shared decision making across the care system.
PI Health and Care Ltd will produce online reports using HealthTrak data analysis tool to provide Doncaster CCG with a range of high level commissioning intelligence based on integrated pathways of care in Doncaster. Access to these reports is based on user access controls, as follows:

*PI Care and Health is a product of the company PI Limited. PI Limited also known as PI Benchmark. The company registration number is 1728605.


No record level data will be linked other than as specifically detailed within this application/agreement. Data will only be shared with those parties listed and will only be used for the purposes laid out in the application/agreement. The data to be released from the NHS Digita; will not be national data, but only that data relating to the specific locality of interest of the applicant.

Yielded Benefits:

Validation of invoices to ensure only appropriate activity is paid for. Population Health Management in conjunction with Doncaster MBC Integrated commissioning in conjunction with Doncaster MBC Business intelligence including performance reporting

Expected Benefits:

Invoice Validation
1. Financial validation of activity
2. CCG Budget control
3. Commissioning and performance management
4. Meeting commissioning objectives without compromising patient confidentiality
5. The avoidance of misappropriation of public funds to ensure the ongoing delivery of patient care
Risk Stratification
Risk stratification promotes improved case management in primary care and will lead to the following benefits being realised:
1. Improved planning by better understanding patient flows through the healthcare system, thus allowing commissioners to design appropriate pathways to improve patient flow and allowing commissioners to identify priorities and identify plans to address these.
2. Improved quality of services through reduced emergency readmissions, especially avoidable emergency admissions. This is achieved through mapping of frequent users of emergency services and early intervention of appropriate care.
3. Improved access to services by identifying which services may be in demand but have poor access, and from this identify areas where improvement is required.
4. Potentially reduced premature mortality by more targeted intervention in primary care, which supports the commissioner to meets its requirement to reduce premature mortality in line with the CCG Outcome Framework.
5. Better understanding of the health of and the variations in health outcomes within the population to help understand local population characteristics.
All of the above lead to improved patient experience through more effective commissioning of services.
Pseudonymised – SUS and Local Flows
1. Supporting Quality Innovation Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) to review demand management, integrated care and pathways.
a. Analysis to support full business cases.
b. Develop business models.
c. Monitor In year projects.
2. Supporting Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for specific disease types.
3. Health economic modelling using:
a. Analysis on provider performance against 18 weeks wait targets.
b. Learning from and predicting likely patient pathways for certain conditions, in order to influence early interventions and other treatments for patients.
c. Analysis of outcome measures for differential treatments, accounting for the full patient pathway.
d. Analysis to understand emergency care and linking A&E and Emergency Urgent Care Flows (EUCC).
4. Commissioning cycle support for grouping and re-costing previous activity.
5. Enables monitoring of:
a. CCG outcome indicators.
b. Non-financial validation of activity.
c. Successful delivery of integrated care within the CCG.
d. Checking frequent or multiple attendances to improve early intervention and avoid admissions.
e. Case management.
f. Care service planning.
g. Commissioning and performance management.
h. Understanding the care of patients in nursing homes.
Feedback to NHS service providers on data quality and non-financial validation of contract activity at an aggregate and individual record level – only on data initially provided by the service providers.

Commissioning (Pseudonymised) – SUS
Data Processor 3 - PI Health and Care Ltd
1. Improved performance against national Better Care Fund metrics
2. Reduction in A&E attendances (especially for elderly persons)
3. Reduction in emergency hospital admissions (especially for elderly persons)
4. Accurate evaluation of local Better Care Fund schemes
5. Accurate evaluation of system transformation of Intermediate Care
6. Improved experience of service users
7. Improved health outcomes
8. Improved social care outcomes
9. Improved productivity thorough streamlining and integration of services.

Pseudonymised – Mental Health, Maternity, IAPT, CYPHS and DIDS
1. Supporting Quality Innovation Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) to review demand management, Integrated care and pathways.
a. Analysis to support full business cases.
b. Develop business models.
c. Monitor In year projects.
2. Supporting Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for specific disease types.
3. Health economic modelling using:
a. Analysis on provider performance against 18 weeks wait targets.
b. Learning from and predicting likely patient pathways for certain conditions, in order to influence early interventions and other treatments for patients.
c. Analysis of outcome measures for differential treatments, accounting for the full patient pathway.
4. Commissioning cycle support for grouping and re-costing previous activity.
5. Enables monitoring of:
a. CCG outcome indicators.
b. Non-financial validation of activity.
c. Successful delivery of integrated care within the CCG.
d. Checking frequent or multiple attendances to improve early intervention and avoid admissions.
e. Case management.
f. Care service planning.
g. Commissioning and performance management.
h. Understanding the care of patients in nursing homes.
6. Feedback to NHS service providers on data quality and non-financial validation of contract activity at an aggregate and individual record level – only on data initially provided by the service providers.

Outputs:

Invoice Validation
1. Addressing poor data quality issues
2. Production of reports for business intelligence
3. Budget reporting
4. Validation of invoices for non-contracted events

Risk Stratification
1. As part of the risk stratification processing activity detailed above, GPs have access to the risk stratification tool which highlights patients for whom the GP is responsible and have been classed as at risk. The only identifier available to GPs is the NHS numbers of their own patients. Any further identification of the patients will be completed by the GP on their own systems.
2. Output from the risk stratification tool will provide aggregate reporting of number and percentage of population found to be at risk.
3. Record level output will be available for commissioners pseudonymised at patient level
4. GP Practices will be able to view the risk scores for individual patients with the ability to display the underlying SUS data for the individual patients when it is required for direct care purposes by someone who has a legitimate relationship with the patient.

Pseudonymised – SUS and Local Flows
1. Commissioner reporting:
a. Summary by provider view - plan & actuals year to date (YTD).
b. Summary by Patient Outcome Data (POD) view - plan & actuals YTD.
c. Summary by provider view - activity & finance variance by POD.
d. Planned care by provider view - activity & finance plan & actuals YTD.
e. Planned care by POD view - activity plan & actuals YTD.
f. Provider reporting.
g. Statutory returns.
h. Statutory returns - monthly activity return.
i. Statutory returns - quarterly activity return.
j. Delayed discharges.
k. Quality & performance referral to treatment reporting.
2. Readmissions analysis.
3. Production of aggregate reports for CCG Business Intelligence.
4. Production of project / programme level dashboards.
5. Monitoring of acute / community / mental health quality matrix.
6. Clinical coding reviews / audits.
7. Budget reporting down to individual GP Practice level.
8. GP Practice level dashboard reports include high flyers.

Commissioning (Pseudonymised) – SUS
Data Processor 3 - PI Health and Care Ltd
Reports, analyses and dashboards to support the integration of health and social care including:
1. Falls
2. Better Care Fund national metrics
3. Better Care Fund local schemes
4. Intermediate Care

Pseudonymised – Mental Health, Maternity, IAPT, CYPHS and DIDS
1. Commissioner reporting:
a. Summary by provider view - plan & actuals year to date (YTD).
b. Summary by Patient Outcome Data (POD) view - plan & actuals YTD.
c. Summary by provider view - activity & finance variance by POD.
d. Planned care by provider view - activity & finance plan & actuals YTD.
e. Planned care by POD view - activity plan & actuals YTD.
f. Provider reporting.
g. Statutory returns.
h. Statutory returns - monthly activity return.
i. Statutory returns - quarterly activity return.
j. Delayed discharges.
k. Quality & performance referral to treatment reporting.
2. Readmissions analysis.
3. Production of aggregate reports for CCG Business Intelligence.
4. Production of project / programme level dashboards.
5. Monitoring of mental health quality matrix.
6. Clinical coding reviews / audits.
7. Budget reporting down to individual GP Practice level.
8. GP Practice level dashboard reports include high flyers.

Processing:

DSCRO will apply Type 2 objections before any identifiable data leaves the DSCRO.
The CCG and any Data Processor will only have access to records of its own CCG. Access is limited to substantive employees with authorised user accounts used for identification and authentication.
Invoice Validation
1. SUS Data is obtained from the SUS Repository to Yorkshire DSCRO
2. Yorkshire DSCRO pushes a one-way data flow of SUS data into the Controlled Environment for Finance (CEfF) located in the CCG.
3. The CEfF conduct the following processing activities for invoice validation purposes:
a. Checking the individual is registered to the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) by using the derived commissioner field in SUS and associated with an invoice from the national SUS data flow to validate the corresponding record in the backing data flow
b. Once the backing information is received, this will be checked against national NHS and local commissioning policies as well as being checked against system access and reports provided by the HSCIC to confirm the payments are:
i. In line with Payment by Results tariffs
ii. Are in relation to a patient registered with the CCG GP or resident within the CCG area.
iii. The health care provided should be paid by the CCG in line with CCG guidance. 
4. The CCG are notified that the invoice has been validated and can be paid. Any discrepancies or non-validated invoices are investigated and resolved

Risk Stratification
1. Identifiable SUS data is obtained from the SUS Repository to Yorkshire Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office (DSCRO).
2. Data quality management and standardisation of data is completed by Yorkshire DSCRO and the data identifiable at the level of NHS number is transferred securely to North of England CSU, who hold the SUS data within the secure Data Centre on N3.
3. As part of the risk stratification processing activity, GPs have access to the risk stratification tool within the data processor, which highlights patients with whom the GP has a legitimate relationship and have been classed as at risk. The only identifier available to GPs is the NHS numbers of their own patients. Any further identification of the patients will be completed by the GP on their own systems.
4. North of England CSU who host the risk stratification system that holds SUS data is limited to those administrative staff with authorised user accounts used for identification and authentication.
5. Once North of England CSU has completed the processing, the CCG can access the online system via a secure N3 connection to access the data pseudonymised at patient level.

Pseudonymised – SUS and Local Flows
1. Yorkshire Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office (DSCRO) obtains a flow of SUS identifiable data for the CCG from the SUS Repository. Yorkshire DSCRO also obtains identifiable local provider data for the CCG directly from Providers.
2. Data quality management and pseudonymisation of data is completed by the DSCRO and the pseudonymised data is then passed securely to North of England CSU for the addition of derived fields, linkage of data sets and analysis. Allowed linkage is between SUS data sets and local flows
3. North of England CSU then pass the processed, pseudonymised and linked data to the CCG. The CCG analyse the data to see patient journeys for pathways or service design, re-design and de-commissioning.
4. Aggregation of required data for CCG management use will be completed by the CSU or the CCG as instructed by the CCG.
5. Patient level data will not be shared outside of the CCG and will only be shared within the CCG on a need to know basis, as per the purposes stipulated within the Data Sharing Agreement. External aggregated reports only with small number suppression in line with the HES analysis guide can be shared where contractual arrangements are in place.

Commissioning (Pseudonymised) – SUS
Data Processor - PI Health and Care Ltd
1. Yorkshire Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office (DSCRO) receive a flow of identifiable SUS data for Doncaster from SUS.
2. Data quality management of data is completed by the DSCRO. The SUS data is then pseudonymised using University of Nottingham open pseudonymiser tool - a standalone windows desktop application which creates a digest of one or more columns of a CSV file, using a shared key (SALT file) controlled by Yorkshire Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office
3. The completed pseudonymised file is then passed to PI Limited (PI Care and Health) via secure FTP.
4. Data quality management of social care data is completed by Doncaster Council. The social care data is then pseudonymised using University of Nottingham open pseudonymiser tool. Pseudonymised Social Care Data will be sent to PI Limited (PI Care and Health) direct from Doncaster Council via secure FTP.
5. The pseudonymisation key cannot be used to re-identify data as the tool does not allow for this to happen, it only allows for one way pseudonymisation. The pseudonymisation tool will not be received by PI Limited (PI Care and Health) from either the DSCRO or Doncaster CCG. Pseudonymisation that allows data to be matched is dependent on having the correct key.
6. PI Limited (PI Care and Health) then link the data using the common pseudo link, which is undertaken within a controlled environment by a named member of staff, who then produce online reports using HealthTrak data analysis tool to provide Doncaster CCG a with a range of high level commissioning intelligence based on integrated pathways of care in Doncaster. Access to these reports is based on user access controls, as follows:
- Access to the commissioning intelligence at pseudonymised level is accessible by only 2 named members of staff in the CCG (based on a super user access licence for HealthTrak)
- Access to aggregate commissioning intelligence (anonymised) is available to no more than 3 additional users across the CCG (standard user licence)
- External aggregated reports only with small number suppression can be shared.
Access to the HealthTrak system, both on a super user and standard user approach is governed via respective organisation employee code of practice, data protection policies and information governance protocols. Additionally, super users conform to a specific information access agreement which mitigates the risk of how the pseudonymised data can be handled and used.

Pseudonymised – Mental Health, MSDS, IAPT, CYPHS and DIDS
1. Yorkshire Data Services for Commissioners Regional Office (DSCRO) obtains a flow of data identifiable at the level of NHS number for Mental Health (MHSDS, MHMDS, MHLDDS), Maternity (MSDS), Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT), Child and Young People’s Health (CYPHS) and Diagnostic Imaging (DIDS) for commissioning purposes.
2. Data quality management and pseudonymisation of data is completed by Yorkshire DSCRO and the pseudonymised data is then passed securely to North of England CSU for the addition of derived fields and analysis.
3. North of England CSU then pass the processed, pseudonymised data to the CCG.
4. The CCG analyses the data to see patient journeys for pathway or service design, re-design and de-commissioning
5. Aggregation of required data for CCG management use will be completed by the CSU or the CCG as instructed by the CCG
6. Patient level data will not be shared outside of the CCG and will only be shared within the CCG on a need to know basis, as per the purposes stipulated within the Data Sharing Agreement. External aggregated reports only with small number suppression can be shared.


Cancer Alliance access to National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Data Set (NCWTMDS) from the Cancer Wait Times (CWT) System — DARS-NIC-204562-J5W0T

Opt outs honoured: No - data flow is not identifiable, Anonymised - ICO Code Compliant (Does not include the flow of confidential data)

Legal basis: Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(1) and s261(2)(b)(ii), Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(1) and s261(2)(b)(ii), Health and Social Care Act 2012 – s261(2)(b)(ii)

Purposes: No (Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Network, Sub ICB Location)

Sensitive: Non Sensitive, and Sensitive, and Non-Sensitive

When:DSA runs 2019-01-02 — 2020-01-01 2019.02 — 2021.05.

Access method: System Access
(System access exclusively means data was not disseminated, but was accessed under supervision on NHS Digital's systems)

Data-controller type: NHS DONCASTER CCG, NHS SOUTH YORKSHIRE ICB - 02X

Sublicensing allowed: No

Datasets:

  1. National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring DataSet (CWT)
  2. National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring DataSet (NCWTMDS)

Objectives:

This agreement is for the South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire Cancer Alliance to access Cancer Waiting Times data. However, the Cancer Alliance is not a legal entity - its staff (and those accessing the Cancer Waiting Times data) are substantively employed by NHS Doncaster Clinical Commissioing Group (CCG). NHS Doncaster CCG is therefore the lead organisation, and the data controller who processes data. In this agreement, therefore, all references to accessing the data refer to the legal entity - NHS Doncaster CCG.

Improvements for Cancer patients

The independent Cancer Taskforce set out an ambitious vision for improving services, care and outcomes for everyone with Cancer: fewer people getting Cancer, more people surviving Cancer, more people having a good experience of their treatment and care, whoever they are and wherever they live, and more people being supported to live as well as possible after treatment has finished.


Cancer Alliances

Cancer Alliances, which have been set up across England, are key to driving the change needed across the country to achieve the Taskforce’s vision. Bringing together local clinical and managerial leaders from providers and commissioners who represent the whole Cancer pathway, Cancer Alliances provide the opportunity for a different way of working to improve and transform Cancer services. Cancer Alliance partners will take a whole population, whole pathway approach to improving outcomes across their geographical ‘footprints’, building on their relevant Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs). They will bring together influential local decision-makers and be responsible for directing funding to transform services and care across whole pathways, reducing variation in the availability of good care and treatment for all people with Cancer, and delivering continuous improvement and reduction in inequality of experience. They will particularly focus on leading transformations at scale to improve survival, early diagnosis, patient experience and long-term quality of life. Successful delivery will be shown in improvements in ratings in the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Improvement and Assessment Framework (IAF), including, importantly, in the 62 day wait from referral to first treatment standard.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/ccg-iaf-methodology-manual/


Cancer Wait Times (CWT) system

The Cancer Wait Times (CWT) system collects and validates the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Data Set (NCWTMDS), allowing performance to be measured against operational Cancer standards. Data is validated and records merged to the same pathway to cover the period from referral to first definitive treatment for Cancer and any additional subsequent treatments.
The CWT system then determines whether the operational standard(s) that apply were met or not for the patient and the accountable provider(s). The CWT system holds NCWTMDS in a series of pre-aggregated static reports. These reports are available monthly and quarterly data (aligned with the National Statistics for Cancer Waiting Times published by NHS England). Users can query the CWT system to generate reports to feedback on the progress towards meeting these targets.


South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire Cancer Alliance

Doncaster CCG will directly access the Cancer Waiting Times System for the South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire Cancer Alliance region, which covers a population of 1.85 million people.

South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire Cancer Alliance works with health organisations across South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire including 5 acute providers and 7 clinical commissioning groups.

Acute Providers

BARNSLEY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
CHESTERFIELD ROYAL HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
DONCASTER AND BASSETLAW TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
THE ROTHERHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

CCGs

NHS BARNSLEY CCG
NHS BASSETLAW CCG
NHS DONCASTER CCG
NHS HARDWICK CCG
NHS NORTH DERBYSHIRE CCG
NHS ROTHERHAM CCG
NHS SHEFFIELD CCG

Data access

The CWT system provides one organisation (the lead organisation) representing each Cancer Alliance, with access to the following;
a) Aggregate reports (which may include unsuppressed small numbers)
b) Pseudonymised record level data - users can directly download this data from the CWT system
c) I-View Plus tool

Doncaster CCG will only access patient records which fall within the Cancer Alliances' footprint of responsibility based on the patients' CCG of responsibility. This Cancer Alliance is limited to South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire Cancer Patients.

A) Aggregate reports including small numbers
Aggregate data is available in the form of reports at Provider (Trust) and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) level.
Small numbers may be included in the aggregate data reports and are essential for analyses carried out by lead organisations.

Investigating breaches
Doncaster CCG routinely monitor performance and standards using the CWT system, particularly in relation to breaches of the 62 day wait target. Due to the large number of potential Trust/CCG combinations, breach counts could result in small numbers as in some cases there are less than 6 breaches in a whole year. Given that financial penalties are linked to target breaches counts must accurately reflect the true percentage without suppression.

Mitigating risk of re-identification
Risk of disclosure is minimised as the dataset does not include patient demographics (increasing risk of re-identification) that may allow users to identify an individual e.g. there are no age, ethnic categories or geographic breakdowns based on patient postcode.

Additionally, the aggregation categories are such that the data is not at a lesser granular level e.g. the source NCWTMDS data collects information at ICD diagnosis code level, but the CWT system aggregates at tumour group level – e.g. Head & Neck, Upper GI, lower GI, Breast etc.

B) Pseudonymised record level extracts
Doncaster CCG will access record level pseudonymised data which includes the system generated pseudo CWT patient ID.

Any record level data extracted from the system will not be processed outside of the authorised users of the system.

C) i-View Plus .
iView Plus uses cube functionality to allow lead organisations to produce graphs, charts and tabulations from the data through the construction of queries. The data in iView plus is split by operational standard being measured and can then be analysed against a range of dimensions collected in the data and measures such as count, percentage and median. The outputs of iView Plus are aggregate, and no record level data can be obtained, however some queries may result in small numbers and these currently have limited disclosure control applied, see A) for further explanation.
iView Plus holds published data, the lowest organisational granularity is trust level, data can also be aggregated to CCG level and other health hierarchies.

Doncaster CCG will use the data to both monitor and improve performance against the Cancer Waiting Time standards and to inform wider Cancer pathway improvements.

Doncaster CCG's use of the data will fall into two separate categories, each requiring different levels of suppression, and onward sharing both within the Cancer Alliance and with wider NHS stakeholders;

Purpose One - Aggregate local reports
Generation of routine Cancer Waiting Times reports at Provider (Trust) or CCG level. Lead organisations will access a summary of the totals for the Providers (Trust) and CCG's that are treating cancer patients where they have a commissioning responsibility for that patient (based on the CCG they are aligned to). This analysis would then be shared with the providers and commissioners and used to inform service improvement by providing benchmarked comparable data. The format of this report would be in a tabulated or graphical form (i.e. not record level) but may contain small numbers. An example of where small numbers would not be suppressed would be in relation to cases of breaches against a standard where small numbers would be essential to ensure the report is meaningful.

Examples of this type of analysis include:
a. Comparative Cancer Waiting Times performance at tumour group and individual tumour site (i.e. ICD10 code) level for Trusts and CCGs across the geography
b. Analysis of Cancer Waiting Times performance by treatment modality
c. Grouping length of waits for standards
d. Analysis of free text and derived breach reason fields to identify trends in reasons for delays
e. To provide assurance through comparative analysis (e.g. orphan record identification, active monitoring proportions and validation of waiting list adjustments entered)
f. Analysis of flows of patients including analysis by provider trust site
g. Reviewing waits between surgery and radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer patients with a maximum recommended wait of 6 weeks
h. Reviewing routes to diagnosis of patients
i. Quantifying treatment volumes by provider organisation including analysis treatment rates

Purpose Two - Sharing of record level data (including free text breach reasons) with providers and commissioners responsible for direct patient care for that patient. This will be for local audit purposes.

The two broad purposes for this would be;

1) To support audit work
2) Investigate individual outliers to the national standards

Pathway analysis will be undertaken, identifying trends in reasons for breaches. The analysis will inform system wide pathway improvements and compliance to the national standards. Examples of potential changes to achieve this could be to support trusts in additional resources and processes and also to facilitate discuss between trusts for example in reaching agreement for diagnostics between trusts.

Examples of the types of reasons for this include;
a. Patients waiting excessively long period of time to seen of received treatment
b. Free text breach reasons identifying areas of concern which require more detail or clarification from provider
c. Identification of 28 day standard exceptions - National guidance states patients who are diagnosed with cancer should be informed face to face, this would highlights numbers of patients who are not told in person by provider
d. Audits to review orphan records which require local providers to review local patients records

Record level data (pseudonymised) will be shared via NHS.net email accounts and access will be controlled by password protecting all files.

Yielded Benefits:

Cancer Alliances have previously had access to Cancer Waiting Times reports and pseudonymised data through the system on Open Exeter, under an agreement with NHS England. This has enabled analysis to inform service improvement both to achieve the national Cancer Waiting Times standards and also wider cancer pathway improvement work, which will have contributed to oncoming improvements to cancer survival and patient experience.

Expected Benefits:

1) Benefits type: Supporting delivery of CWT standards
The Cancer Waiting Times standards are key operational standards for the NHS, which aim to reduce the waits for diagnosis and treatment for Cancer patients, which will support improvements to survival rates and improve patient experience. This includes the new 28 day faster diagnosis standard being introduced as a standard from April 2020.
A key enabler to achieve these standards, and thus improve survival and patient experience is the role of Cancer Alliances locally to work with providers and commissioners to improve patient pathways. Access to the Cancer Waiting Times data as detailed in the above will enable Cancer Alliances to have informed discussions and allocate resources optimally to improve performance against these standards. It will also enable Cancer Alliances to work with local providers and commissioners to identify outliers against the standards, and mitigate the risk of similar delays for other patients.

Improvement would be expected on an on-going basis with standards already in place for nine standards:-
• 2 week wait urgent GP referral – 93%
• 2 week wait breast symptomatic – 93%
• 31 day 1st treatment - 96%
• 31 day subsequent surgery – 94%
• 31 day subsequent drugs – 98%
• 31 day subsequent radiotherapy – 94%
• 62 day (GP) referral to 1st treatment – 85%
• 62 day (screening ) referral to 1st treatment – 90%
• 62 day upgrade to 1st treatment – locally agreed standard
In addition this access and use of data will be key in delivering the new 28 day faster diagnosis standard being introduced from 2020

2) Benefits type: Improvements beyond constitutional standards
This access and resulting analysis will enable Cancer Alliances to undertake local analysis beyond the Cancer Waiting times operational standards to support improvements to Cancer patients pathways beyond those already achieved by improving performance against standard set. This could include reviewing times between treatments, or treatment rates.

The overall aim of this type of additional analysis would be to support improvements to Cancer patients survival and experience. The Cancer Taskforce recommendation set out a number of ambitions to be met nationally and locally by 2020 including improving 1 year survival for Cancer to 75%, and improving the proportions of patients staged 1 or 2 to 62%. For both of these improvements to the diagnostic and treatment pathways are key, and require Cancer Alliances to be able to analyse the Cancer Waiting Times dataset to identify sub-optimum pathways and resulting improvements.

Outputs:

Outputs fall into the following categories:

1) Analysis to support delivery of Cancer Waiting Times standard and identify variation, including clinical discussions to improve patient pathways
a. Comparative Cancer Waiting Times performance at tumour group and individual tumour site (i.e. ICD10 code) level for Trusts and CCGs.
b. Analysis of Cancer Waiting Times performance by treatment modality to inform discussions
c. Grouping length of waits for standards to inform discussions on going beyond constitutional standards
d. Analysis of free text and derived breach reason fields to identify trends in reasons for delays.
e. To provide assurance through comparative analysis (e.g. orphan record identification, active monitoring proportions and validation of waiting list adjustments entered)
f. Analysis of flows of patients including analysis by provider trust site
g. Outlier identification including exceptionally long waits to inform individual queries to providers

2) Cancer Waits analysis (not directly linked to constitutional standards) for the aim of identifying variation which may impact Cancer patient’s outcomes or patient experience. Examples for use of the data may include reviewing waits between surgery and radiotherapy for Head and Neck cancer patients with a maximum recommended wait of 6 weeks and using the data source to validate surgical numbers by provider trust.

The overarching aim of all future analysis/outputs is to inform priorities and potential investment to improve Cancer pathways including reducing Cancer incidence and mortality, improving Cancer survival, improving patient experience, improving service efficiency and meeting national constitution standards relating to Cancer patients.


Processing:

Access to the Cancer Wait Times (CWT) System will enable Cancer Alliances to undertake a wide range of locally-determined and locally-specific analyses to support the Cancer Taskforce vision for improving services, care and outcomes for everyone with Cancer.

Only Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) will directly access the Cancer Waiting Times system. Extracts can be downloaded and will be stored on the Doncaster CCG servers. Role Based Access Control prevents access to data downloads to employees outside of the analytical team responsible for producing outputs.

The CWT system is hosted by NHS Digital, access to and usage of the system is fully auditable. Users must comply with the use of the data as specified in this agreement. The CWT system complies with the requirements of NHS Digital Code of Practice on Confidential Information, the Caldicott Principles and other relevant statutory requirements and guidance to protect confidentiality.

Access to the CWT system will be granted to individual users only when a valid Data Usage Certificate (DUC) form is submitted to NHS Digital via the lead organisations Senior Information Risk Officer (SIRO), and where there is a valid Data Sharing Agreement between the lead organisation and NHS Digital.

Approved users will log into the system via an N3 connection and will use a Single Sign-On (users are prompted to create a unique username and password).

Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group users will access:

a) Aggregate reports (which may include unsuppressed small numbers)

b) Pseudonymised record level data - users can directly download this data from the CWT system

c) I-View Plus tool (aggregated - access to produce graphs, charts/tabulations from the data through the construction of queries). This will give users access to run bespoke analysis on pre-defined measures and dimensions. It delivers the same data that is available through the reports and record level downloads (i.e. it will not contain patient identifiable data).

Any record level data extracted from the system will not be processed outside of the Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group unless otherwise specified in this agreement.

Users are not permitted to upload data into the system.

Data will only be available for the Providers (Trust) and CCG's that are treating cancer patients where they have a commissioning responsibility for that patient (based on the CCG that this Cancer Alliance is aligned to).

The data will only be shared with other members of the Cancer Alliance in the format described in purpose 1 and purpose 2 of this agreement. The primary method for sharing outputs PDF, MS Excel via NHS NET, as well as developing to Power BI for assigned users through secure access. Aggregate data/ graphical outputs may be shared via e-mail; for example as part of Alliance meeting papers.

Where record level data is shared with individual trusts these are shared only with trust(s) who were involved in the direct care of the patient, only via NHS.net email accounts.

As part of partnership working to improve Cancer Waiting Times performance, outputs may be shared with national/ regional bodies including NHS England, CADEAS, STP and Macmillan. Data will only be shared as described in purpose one and purpose two of this agreement and where recipient organisations hold a valid Data Sharing Agreement with NHS Digital to access Cancer Waiting Times data.

Training on the CWT system is not required as it is a data delivery system and it does not provide functionality to conduct bespoke detailed analysis. User guides are available for further assistance.

Access to the CWT system data is restricted to Cancer Alliance employees who are substantively employed by the Data Controller in fulfilment of their public health function.

The Cancer Alliances will use the data to produce a range of quantitative measures (counts, crude and standardised rates and
ratios) that will form the basis for a range of statistical analyses of the fields contained in the supplied data.
Typical uses will include:
1) Analysis to support delivery of Cancer Waiting Times standard and identify variation, including clinical discussions to improve patient pathways
a. Comparative Cancer Waiting Times performance at tumour group and individual tumour site (i.e. ICD10 code) level for Trusts and CCGs.
b. Analysis of Cancer Waiting Times performance by treatment modality to inform discussions
c. Grouping length of waits for standards to inform discussions on going beyond constitutional standards
d. Analysis of free text and derived breach reason fields to identify trends in reasons for delays.
e. To provide assurance through comparative analysis (e.g. orphan record identification, active monitoring proportions and validation of waiting list adjustments entered)
f. Analysis of flows of patients including analysis by provider trust site
g. Outlier identification including exceptionally long waits to inform individual queries to providers

2) Cancer Waits analysis (not directly linked to constitutional standards) for the aim of identifying variation which may impact Cancer patient’s outcomes or patient experience. Examples for use of the data may include reviewing waits between surgery and radiotherapy for Head and Neck cancer patients with a maximum recommended wait of 6 weeks and using the data source to validate surgical numbers by provider trust.