Synthesising two discussions... would anyone have more confidence in these figures if they had the National Statistics logo (they don't appear to)?
The government appear to be pleased that there is some evidence of a change in trend in MRSA - how much more would they be pleased if an independent national statistics commission had announced the evidence, rather than a departmental quango??
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bivand
Head of Analysis and Statistics
Direct Line: 020 7840 8335
Inclusion
3rd floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
Tel: 020 7582 7221
Fax: 020 7582 6391
Inclusion website: www.cesi.org.uk
Welfare to Work website: www.w2w.org.uk
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox.
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Harding [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 07 March 2005 13:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MRSA[Scanned]
>
>
> On 07-Mar-05 Ted Harding wrote:
> > Thanks to a private communication from David Boyle,
> > I was eventually led to
> >
> > http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/
> > PublicationsStatistics/PublicationsStatisticsArticle/fs/
> > en?CONTENT_ID=4085951&chk=HBt2QD
> >
> > which it seems was released this morning, and this in turn
> > led to a PDF file of numbers and rates for the different
> > Trusts for 2001-4 by 6-monthly intervals:
> >
> > http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/10/55/18/04105518.pdf
> >
> > Though not in an ideal format for analysis (it would have
> > been helpful if the actual numbers of bed-days had been
> > given, instead of having to be inferred from numbers/rates)
> > the latter should be worth a look.
> >
> > In particular, the politicians are flaunting the reduction
> > in total numbers, whereas a more meaningful figure (with
> > respect to their claims) could be the change in overall rates.
> >
> > I haven't done this analysis yet ... (it involves cut&paste
> > from a PDF file, and more).
>
> Well, I've now done this file manipulation (I hope correctly)
> for the General Acute Trusts at the beginning of this dataset.
>
> Using a crude (Sum(cases))/(Sum(cases/rate)) I get (as returned
> from the software):
>
> Apr2001-Sep2001: 0.1368885
> Apr2002-Sep2002: 0.1430201
> Apr2003-Sep2003: 0.1494563
> Apr2004-Sep2004: 0.1490701
>
> Oct2001-Mar2002: 0.1417535
> Oct2002-Mar2003: 0.1611403
> Oct2003-Mar2004: 0.1641550
>
> (The rates, of cases per 1000 bed-days, are given to only 2dp.
> A "case" is a recorded case of MRSA bacteriaemia, i.e.
> detection of the bacterium in a blood sample, for which there
> is mandatory reporting. As the HPA website points out, this is
> not the same as the number of MRSA infections.)
>
> As Alison pointed out, there is a difference to be expected
> between Summer and Winter periods.
>
> From the above calculations, it is clear that Winter rates
> have not decreased, and Summer rates have decreased only in
> the 4th decimal place -- and the data to hand are not precise
> enough for this to be meaningful.
>
> There are also data in the PDF report for Specialist and
> Single Speciality Trusts, which would have been included in
> the Government's announced totals today.
>
> I haven't looked at these yet (nor will be able to today).
>
> Anyway, I'm not yet brimming with confidence in the DoH's
> triumphant announcement that MRSA is on the retreat and
> "The lowest numbers since records began"!
>
> Best wishes to all,
> Ted.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
> Date: 07-Mar-05 Time: 13:16:45
> ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|