Service report FAQs
Q: The report has been emailed to me, but I really
need a physical copy to read and share with the team. Can you
A: We are happy to provide a physical copy of either the
national or your service report if needed. Please just email a
member of the NAPT team who sent it to you, or the NAPT email
If you need any more than one, we would ask that you print it
yourself – we had over 350 participating services for the baseline,
and unfortunately we do not have the time or budget to provide more
Q: Who owns the NAPT data?
A: The data is owned by HQIP, the Healthcare Quality Improvement
Partnership, which has funded the National Audit of Psychological
Therapies. HQIP have received a copy of the national report from
the NAPT team.
Any requests for additional analyses on the data, or reporting
of the data, needs to come to NAPT who will in turn liaise with
Q: Who has the information in the reports been
A: The local service reports are private, and have only been
sent to the audit lead(s) for that service. The national report is
publically available, and can be found on our website:
NAPT National Report 2011
Q: How can we best share the report information with
A: There is a leaflet and a
summarise the main findings of the audit, and also a report for service users /
members of the public which gives the results in a more
detailed, but clear and readable way.
Questions about your service's reports
Q: My service had 92% data completeness for
ethnicity, but our service report said that this was in the
39th percentile, and ‘Below average services’. I
thought 92% was quite good – why do we come out as ‘Below average’?
[NB: A similar question could be asked about their service
user questionnaire results – see below]
A: The percentiles and quartiles show how your service’s
performance for that standard compares with other participating
services. If most services do well on a particular standard, then
the distribution of scores across services may be quite small.
Being in the 39th percentile, for example, just means
that 39% of services score less than 92%, and 61% score higher, but
the actual differences may be quite small.
This is true for the ethnicity coding (St 1a) and service user
standards (St 7 and St 8), but for other standards such as waiting
times (St 2 and 3) and NICE adherence (St 4 and 5) there is a wider
distribution of scores. In this case, being in the ‘Bottom 25%
services’ may mean that your service’s performance is significantly
worse than most other participating services, therefore may merit
Q: Standard 1b says that we need to determine
whether the standard has been met locally, and consider our data in
the light of our service’s target population and local
demographics. How do we do this?
A: Please see the action planning toolkit under Standard 1b.
This details which questions your service should be considering
when trying to determine whether your service has met this
standard, and sources of information you can use such as the ONS
website; the National Equalities in Mental Health Programme; and
various IAPT resources.
Q: My report says that there was not enough data
provided to calculate Standard 2 (waiting to assessment). Why is
A: In a lot of cases, this was because the data extract that was
provided does not give all the dates we needed to calculate waiting
to assessment i.e. both date of referral (Q11) and date of first
appointment attended (i.e. date of assessment) (Q13). This was the
case for several of the data extracts that came from CORE IMs, as
the way that data is collected on this system does not make it easy
to calculate an accurate date of first appointment attended.
Q: My service was not measured for Standard 4 or 5,
as we do not give patients a diagnosis. Why were these standards
A: We understand that some services do not give a diagnosis;
this might be for a number of reasons e.g. the service does not
characterise a patient’s condition according to a ‘medical model’;
or the therapists / workers employed by the service may not be
trained to give a diagnosis.
This means that we cannot measure Standard 4, which looks at
whether a patient has had one of the NICE recommended therapies
recommended for their diagnosis; or if they have had the NICE
recommended number of high intensity therapy sessions or
Q: The NAPT team defines recovery as ‘moving from
caseness to non-caseness’ and reliable improvement was ‘determined
by calculating the reliable change index for the relevant measure’.
Why do you use these definitions? These would not necessarily be
used by our service or by service users, who may have a completely
different view as to what constitutes ‘recovery’.
A: We produced these definitions in collaboration with our
partners at the Centre for Psychological Services Research,
University of Sheffield, who help us with the analysis for the
outcome measures standards (Standard 5 and Standard 9). These
definitions are in common use by researchers who try to calculate
the recovery rates for services by using a variety of different
outcome measures. It can be quite a complex process to compare
recovery rates when services may use different outcome
We recognise that ‘recovery’ may mean something different to a
service user, and this is why we have placed great emphasis in this
audit on producing a service user questionnaire which includes
questions about whether the outcomes of treatment were helpful to
the service user.
Q: Our service uses a bespoke measure which is
suitable for the patients in our service e.g. Older People, people
with OCD. We submitted our pre- and post- treatment scores on this
measure. However, our service report says for Standard 9b that ‘it
was not possible to calculate this standard, as this service did
not submit data on the common outcome measures used by NAPT to
calculate recovery’. Why is this?
A: If your service submitted pre- and post-treatment scores on
any measure, then this has been counted in Standard 9a in the
percentage of patients with a complete outcome measure.
However, in terms of calculating recovery (Standard 9b), we had
to use the commonly used outcome measures that we mention in the
algorithm on pages 74 - 75 of the national report:
1. If both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 had been used then caseness was
defined as above the cut-off on at least one of these
2. If they had not both been used, but there was a pre-treatment
CORE score then caseness was defined as above the cut-off on
3. If the above did not apply, the measure used depended on the
4a. If the primary diagnosis was depression, a measure of
depression was used with the following order of priority: PHQ-9,
4b. If the primary diagnosis was an anxiety disorder, then a
measure of anxiety was used with the following order of priority:
GAD-7, HADS-A, BAI
This is so we can make valid comparisons between services which
use different outcome measures. The outcome measures below have
been used previously by researchers such as our colleagues in
Sheffield to make comparisons. Some of the less common measures
have not been used in this way, therefore it is not possible to
make valid comparisons for services which only use these
Q: Our service has scored ‘Bottom 25% services
(1-25%)’ or ‘Below average services (26-50%)’ for several
standards. We are a small service that has undergone many changes
recently / had cuts in funding and / or staff. This report is only
going to worsen morale amongst our staff, and lead to both
commissioners and service users questioning the value of our
service. How useful is this report to us?
A: We understand that there are a number of reasons why a
service may not perform well on a standard. In some cases this may
be because data collection or recording is not as good as it should
be e.g. ethnicity recording, or recording of exact type of therapy
provided. In other cases, it may be because the service is under
real pressure of resources, therefore waiting times, for example,
might be particularly long.
The NAPT team wants to support services to improve their
performance, not to ‘punish’ services for poor performance. This is
why we have produced the action
planning toolkit, and will be running regional action
planning events. If there are particular issues in your service
which you would like support with, please contact us; we are hoping
to identify services which do particularly well at a standard to be
able to pinpoint why they are so good at a particular area, and
help other services to use these ideas.
We hope that the reaudit which takes place next year will show
that services have been able to make some improvement in areas that
they were having problems with.
NAPT, 4th Floor Standon
House, Mansell Street, London, E1 8AA
Tel: 020 7977 4984 Fax: 020
7481 4831 Email: email@example.com