ECT in the Hospital Episode Statistics

In a recent post I discussed the Department of Health’s electroconvulsive (ECT) statistics and how only a fraction of the ECT actually used in England finds its way into the statistics. Reasons suggested by the Department of Health for the under-reporting of ECT have included:

i) That many trusts do not realise that ECT should be recorded as an operative procedure

ii) Mental Health Trusts which do not usually carry out operations sometimes do not appreciate that there may be ECT codes relevant to them, and therefore leave them out.

That was written in 2003 (Electro Convulsive Therapy: Survey covering the period from January 2002 to March 2002, England, published by the Department of Health, page 2). Since 2006 however the Department of Health has changed the terminology: what they now count is “procedures and interventions” and by no stretch of the imagination can psychiatric hospitals say they do not carry out procedures and interventions.

The HES website (Hospital Episodes Statistics) now publishes provider level statistics, that is statistics from the individual trusts. (A trust is the governing body of a hospital or group of hospitals. There are not vast numbers of mental health trusts in England – fewer than 100).

It is possible to see if the figures for ECT use are reasonable or not by comparing them to the figures produced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for requests to use ECT on non-consenting patients. On most occasions when a psychiatrist in England wants to give ECT to someone who cannot consent, they have to apply for permission from the CQC in the form of a request for a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) to visit. The CQC keeps count of these requests. Apart from anything else they have to pay the SOADs who are paid per visit, and that is an incentive to accurate record-keeping. Not all requests result in ECT being administered, but most do (some requests are cancelled and on very rare occasions SOADs say no). People being treated without their consent still form a minority of ECT patients, albeit an increasingly large one – in the 2002 survey it was nearly a quarter. So it is possible to estimate – very roughly – how much ECT a hospital uses by how many requests for SOAD visits they make.

In the provider level analysis for 2009/2010, over a quarter of trusts had no reports of ECT, although they had made requests to the CQC for a SOAD visit to approve ECT for non-consenting patients. Amongst the trusts that reported no ECT were some with the highest rates of SOAD requests:

  • Greater Manchester West MH NHS Foundation Trust (41 SOAD requests – no ECT reported)
  • Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (33 SOAD requests – no ECT reported)
  • North Essex Partnership NHS Trust (59 SOAD requests – no ECT reported)
  • Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Trust (39 SOAD requests – no ECT reported)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust ( 45 SOAD requests – no ECT reported)
  • West London MH NHS Trust (38 SOAD requests – no ECT reported)

Only one or two trusts were reporting figures that at least looked probable:

  • Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust (12 SOAD requests – 451 ECT administrations)
  • Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (43 SOAD requests – 547 ECT administrations, which is just about possible but would suggest a high use of ECT on non-consenting patients)

The rest of the trusts are reporting some ECT use but the numbers are improbably small. That means that the problem isn’t just that hospitals don’t realize that the coding system applies to them. For example, Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust made 12 requests for SOAD visits but reported only 18 administrations of ECT.

Are some hospitals reporting patients, rather than individual administrations of ECT (which is what they should be reporting)? Is there confusion about what counts as a main intervention or procedure? Or just totally random under-reporting?

This entry was posted in ECT in the UK. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to ECT in the Hospital Episode Statistics

  1. Cheryl Prax says:

    This is all dreadful. Who is in charge of the gathering of ECT statistics? Who should we lobby?

  2. Cheryl Prax says:

    Well I wrote to the Dept of Health about this and this was their first reply:

    Our ref: DE00000639651
    Dear Mrs Prax,

    Thank you for your email of 22 August to the Department of Health about electroconvulsive therapy statistics. I have been asked to reply.

    The collection of statistics on treatments used in the NHS is the responsibility of the NHS Information Centre, which is best placed to answer your query. Contact details are available on its website at
    I hope this reply is helpful.
    Yours sincerely,

    Eamonn Maloney
    Customer Service Centre
    Department of Health

  3. Cheryl Prax says:

    I then wrote to the NHS who replied:

    Re: Enquiry Ref: NIC-113855-4KCQL
    Dear Cheryl,
    Thank you for your enquiry. The Information Centre is not responsible for ensuring providers submit data for HES collection. Please contact the Department of Health
    Kind Regards,
    Claire Cookman
    Contact Centre Team
    The NHS Information Centre
    1 Trevelyan Square
    Boar Lane
    LS1 6AE
    Tel: 0845 300 6016

  4. Cheryl Prax says:

    EvI went back to the Dept of Health and they replied thus:

    Our ref: DE00000644706
    Dear Mrs Prax,

    Thank you for your further recent emails to the Department of Health. I have again been asked to reply.

    I was sorry to read that you did not find my previous reply (our ref: DE00000639651) entirely helpful. Departmental officials have informed me that they are aware of inconsistencies in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) reporting, and that the number of administrations of ECT has therefore been made a mandatory reporting item in the new Mental Health Minimum Dataset out next month.

    I also note your concerns about the Department’s web contact form. The introduction of the web form has meant that the Department now receives almost no spam at all, which was previously of an unmanageable volume. This allows the Customer Service Centre to process correspondence more efficiently. I have forwarded your email to the Department’s website team so that they may be aware of your concerns.
    I hope this reply is helpful.
    Yours sincerely,

    Eamonn Maloney
    Customer Service Centre
    Department of Health

  5. Cheryl Prax says:

    Does this mean they are only going to register, ‘the number of administrations of ECT ‘ and nothing else? I will have to ask them. Watch this space!

  6. Cheryl Prax says:

    My latest question to Dept of Health:

    Your ref: DE00000644706

    You say ‘that the number of administrations of ECT has therefore been made a mandatory reporting item in the new Mental Health Minimum Dataset out next month’.
    1) Where can I find this ‘Mental Health Minimum Dataset?’
    2) Can you also insist on full ECT statistics as previously compiled – not just ‘number of administrations’?

    Thank you.

  7. This is what they were saying six years ago:
    “Ms Rosie Winterton: There are no plans to conduct a further survey on electroconvulsive therapy. In future, information on the use of electroconvulsive therapy will be available from the mental health minimum dataset”
    She didn’t say how far in the future.

    I guess this is where you find the reports.
    And this is where it says about ECT reporting being mandatory

  8. Cheryl Prax says:

    I have been so busy I forgot about this exchange of emails with the various departments. Wonder when I will get time to start it up again!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s