Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Practice postcode versus patient population: a comparison of data sources in England and Scotland

By G. McLean, B. Guthrie, G. Watt, M. Gabbay and C.A. O'Donnell


<b>Background</b> Health professionals, policy-makers and researchers need to be able to explore potential associations between prevalence rates and quality of care with a range of possible determinants including socio-economic deprivation and morbidity levels to determine the impact of commissioning and service delivery. In the UK, data in England are only available nationally at practice postcode level. In Scotland, such data are available based on an aggregate of the practices population's postcodes. The use of data assigned to the practice postcode may underestimate the association between ill health and income deprivation. Here, we report on the impact of using data assigned to the practice population by comparing analyses using English and Scottish data.<p></p>\ud <b>Results</b> Income deprivation based on data assigned to the practice postcode under-estimated deprivation compared to using income deprivation data assigned to the practice population for the five least deprived deciles, and over-estimated deprivation for the five most deprived deciles. The biggest differences were found for the most deprived decile. A similar trend was found for limiting long-term illness (LLTI). Differences between the QOF prevalence rates of the least and most deprived deciles using practice postcode data were similar (0.2% points or less) in England and Scotland for 8 out of 10 clinical domains. Using practice population assigned deprivation, differences in the prevalence rate between the least and most deprived deciles increase for all clinical domains. A similar trend was again found for LLTI. Using practice population assigned deprivation, differences for population achievement increase for all CHD quality indicators with the exception of beta-blockers (CHD10). With practice postcode assigned deprivation, significant differences between the least and most deprived deciles were found for 2 out 8 indicators, compared to 5 using practice population assigned deprivation. For LLTI differences between the lowest and most deprived deciles increased for all indicators when ill health assigned to the practice population was used.<p></p>\ud <b>Conclusion</b> We have found, through comparing deprivation and ill health data assigned to either the practice postcode or the practice population postcode in Scotland, that analyses based on practice postcode assigned data under-estimated the relationship between deprivation and ill health for both prevalence and quality care. Given the importance of understanding the effect of deprivation and ill health on a range of determinants related to health care, policy makers should ensure that practice population data are available and used at national level in England and elsewhere where possible

Topics: RA
Publisher: BioMed Central
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:
Provided by: Enlighten

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). A comparison of methods for calculating general practice level socio-economic deprivation
  2. (2007). A method of modelling GP practice level deprivation scores using GIS. doi
  3. (2005). A review of the use of routine data
  4. (2006). Deprivation and quality of primary care services: evidence for persistence of the inverse care law from the UK. Quality and Outcomes Framework. doi
  5. Determinants of primary medical care quality measured under the new UK contract: cross sectional study. doi
  6. (2007). Differences in the quality of primary medical care for CVD and diabetes across the NHS: evidence from the quality and outcomes framework. BMC Health Serv Res. doi
  7. (2007). Differences in the quality of primary medical care services by remoteness from urban settlements. Quality and Safety in Health Care doi
  8. (2007). Do the UK government’s Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores adequately measure primary care performance? A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data. doi
  9. (2001). Ecological versus individual-level sources of bias in ecologic estimates of contextual health effects. doi
  10. (1995). How many general practitioners for 1433 patients. BMJ doi
  11. (2004). Indices of deprivation
  12. (1998). Individual social class, area-based deprivation, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and mortality: the Renfrew and Paisley Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. doi
  13. (2006). Overall Quality of Outcomes Framework scores lower in practices in deprived areas.
  14. (2006). Practice size and quality attainment under the new GMS contract: a cross-sectional analysis.
  15. (2007). Practice size, caseload, deprivation and quality of care of patients with coronary heart disease, hypertension and stroke in primary care: national cross-sectional study. doi
  16. Quality and Outcomes Framework
  17. (1997). Routinely collected data in national and regional databasesan under used resource. doi
  18. (2004). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004: summary technical report.
  19. (2000). The ecological fallacy strikes back. doi
  20. The Information Centre. Quality and Outcomes Framework (
  21. (2004). The relationship between general practice characteristics and quality of care: a national survey of quality indicators used in the Quality and Outcomes Framework,
  22. (2007). The relationship between social deprivation and quality of primary care: a national survey using indicators from the Quality Outcomes Framework. British journal of General Practice
  23. Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfalls. Quality and Safety in Health Care doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.