joint strategic needs assessment foundation profile - JSNA

Interative Hull Atlas: www.hullpublichealth.org/Pages/hull_atlas.htm More information: www.jsnaonline.org and www.hullpublichealth.org
in a lower (less deprived) score that under-estimates the level of deprivation. For
instance, ethnicity of the patient and GP may influence the practice where the patient
registers, people with mobility problems or do not have access to a car may be more
likely to be registered with practices along bus routes, practices may specialise in
particular types of patients who may live in the most deprived areas 16 , etc. Some GPs
may have moved their practices and their practice population may live in an area that is
not immediately nearby the practice (although the calculation above takes this into
consideration). Therefore, the scores given in Table 49 should be used as a guide to
the level of deprivation within each practice. Further information at practice level is
included on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 report available at
www.hullpublichealth.org (but note that some of the practice names have changed and
there is one new practice since the population-weighted deprivation scores were
calculated in 2007 – the table below gives the scores weighted to an updated population
as at April 2010 so that the score is given for new practices). The higher scores denote
higher levels of deprivation. The ranks are also given (the most deprived practice has
the rank of 60).
Within section 10 starting on page 434, the diagnosed prevalence of different diseases
is given from the Quality Outcomes and Framework (QOF). As the prevalence figures
are unadjusted for influencing factors, such as the age of the patients and deprivation.
Practices with a high proportion of elderly patients and practices in the most deprived
areas will tend to have a higher prevalence of disease (and generally a higher
prevalence of undiagnosed disease). See section 12.13 on page 782 for more
information on QOF and issues associated with presenting the prevalence at practice
level. For this reason, it is useful to examine the prevalence of disease considering the
effects of age and deprivation for each practice. Practices have been grouped (see
section 3.3.3.3 on page 47) into similar groups with respect to the age and deprivation
scores of their patients, so practices can be compared more easily (say in relation to the
prevalence of disease on QOF disease registers).
Table 49: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 scores and ranks for each Hull practice
Rank Practice
List size Mean IMD
code Practice name
Apr 2010 2007 score
44 B81002 Dr A Kumar-Choudhary 3,833 42.6
59 B81018 Dr R K Awan & Partners 6,549 56.8
17 B81020 Dr P C Mitchell & Partners 7,369 27.2
15 B81021 Faith House Surgery 7,275 27.0
20 B81049 Dr V A Rawcliffe & Partners 9,345 31.5
8 B81094 Dr A K Datta 1,876 23.5
13 B81095 Dr Cook 4,203 26.8
42 B81112 Dr Ghosh Raghunath & Partners 3,491 42.5
16 For example, The Quays practice has a relatively high proportion of patients who are homeless, drug
addicts, asylum seekers, etc. It is likely that these patients will live in the most deprived areas of an SOA
geographical area, and assigning the average score for the SOA to these patients may under-estimate
their true deprivation score.
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Foundation Profile – Hull Health Profile: Release 3. March 2011. 135