Accuracy rates are improving. Current levels of reported accuracy suggest that routinely collected data are sufficiently robust to support their use for research and managerial decision-making.

Background:Health systems are facing the challenge of providing care to an increasing population of patients with cancer. However, evidence on costs is limited due to the lack of large longitudinal databases.Methods:We matched cost of care data to population-based, patient-level data on cancer patients in England. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients age 18 and over with a diagnosis of colorectal (275 985 patients), breast (359 771), prostate (286 426) and lung cancer (283 940) in England between 2001 and 2010. Incidence costs, prevalence costs, and phase of care costs were estimated separately for patients age 18–64 and ⩾65. Costs of care were compared by patients staging, before and after diagnosis, and with a comparison population without cancer.Results:Incidence costs in the first year of diagnosis are noticeably higher in patients age 18–64 than age ⩾65 across all examined cancers. A lower stage diagnosis is associated with larger cost savings for colorectal and breast cancer in both age groups. The additional costs of care because of the main four cancers amounts to £1.5 billion in 2010, namely 3.0% of the total cost of hospital care.Conclusions:Population-based, patient-level data can be used to provide new evidence on the cost of cancer in England. Early diagnosis and cancer prevention have scope for achieving large cost savings for the health system.

BackgroundThe National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) collects reports about patient safety incidents in England. Government regulators use NRLS data to assess the safety of hospitals. This study aims to examine whether annual hospital incident reporting rates can be used as a surrogate indicator of individual hospital safety. Secondly assesses which hospital characteristics are correlated with high incident reporting rates and whether a high reporting hospital is safer than those lower reporting hospitals. Finally, it assesses which health-care professionals report more incidents of patient harm, which report more near miss incidents and what hospital factors encourage reporting. These findings may suggest methods for increasing the utility of reporting systems.MethodsThis study used a mix methods approach for assessing NRLS data. The data were investigated using Pareto analysis and regression models to establish which patients are most vulnerable to reported harm. Hospital factors were correlated with institutional reporting rates over one year to examine what factors influenced reporting. Staff survey findings regarding hospital safety culture were correlated with reported rates of incidents causing harm; no harm and death to understand what barriers influence error disclosure.Findings5,879,954 incident reports were collected from acute hospitals over the decade. 70.3% of incidents produced no harm to the patient and 0.9% were judged by the reporter to have caused severe harm or death. Obstetrics and Gynaecology reported the most no harm events [OR 1.61(95%CI: 1.12 to 2.27), p<0.01] and pharmacy was the hospital location where most near-misses were captured [OR 3.03(95%CI: 2.04 to 4.55), p<0.01]. Clinicians were significantly more likely to report death than other staff [OR 3.04(95%CI: 2.43 to 3.80) p<0.01]. A higher ratio of clinicians to beds correlated with reduced rate of harm reported [RR = -1.78(95%Cl: -3.33 to -0.23), p = 0.03]. Litigation claims per bed were significantly negatively associated with incident reports. Patient satisfaction and mortality outcomes were not significantly associated with reporting rates. Staff survey responses revealed that keeping reports confidential, keeping staff informed about incidents and giving feedback on safety initiatives increased reporting rates [r = 0.26 (p<0.01), r = 0.17 (p = 0.04), r = 0.23 (p = 0.01), r = 0.20 (p = 0.02)].ConclusionThe NRLS is the largest patient safety reporting system in the world. This study did not demonstrate many hospital characteristics to significantly influence overall reporting rate. There were no association between size of hospital, number of staff, mortality outcomes or patient satisfaction outcomes and incident reporting rate. The study did show that hospitals where staff reported more incidents had reduced litigation claims and when clinician staffing is increased fewer incidents reporting patient harm are reported, whilst near misses remain the same. Certain specialties report more near misses than others, and doctors r...

We obtained reasonable consensus among experts on aims and specifications of PSRS. This information can be used to reflect on existing and future PSRS, and their role within the wider patient safety landscape. The role of PSRS as instruments for learning needs to be elaborated and developed further internationally.

The estimated economic burden of anastomotic leakage following AR is approximately double that of the remunerated tariff.