Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Revision Mammoplasty Local commissioners working with local people for.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Initial thinking on clinical commissioning group (CCG) authorisation
Advertisements

East Midlands Cosmetic Procedures Policy Review March-April
Standard 6: Clinical Handover
Organisational Alignment & Capability Programme briefing for regional and local stakeholders August 2014 V1.0.
Transforming lives through learning Note for deliverers Please amend this presentation to suit your audience and local circumstances – you will not need.
Promoting Excellence in Family Medicine Enabling Patients to Access Electronic Health Records Guidance for Health Professionals.
Diabetes Programme Progress Report Dr Charles Gostling, Joint Diabetes Clinical Director October 2013.
Our Roles and Responsibilities Towards Young Carers Whole Family Working: Making It Real for Young Carers.
Assessment Improvement Maureen McEnaney Safeguarding & Review Manager Every Child Matters.
Quality Assurance. Identified Benefits that the Core Skills Programme is expected to Deliver 1.Increased efficiency in the delivery of Core Skills Training.
The power of information: Putting all of us in control of the health and care information we need Giles Wilmore, Director of Patient & Public Voice and.
SENJIT Code of Practice update and SEND Support Plans.
Transforming Patient Experience: The essential guide
Working Smarter for Better Health Cheshire & Merseyside CSU Commissioning Policies Review being undertaken by the CSU on behalf of the Cheshire and Merseyside.
Real Involvement Statutory guidance for section 242(1B) - the duty to involve.
Training for organisations participating in Peer Review of Paediatric Diabetes.
The National Data Guardian’s Review of Data Security, Consent and Opt-Outs IGA Conference 2016 Dame Fiona Caldicott 16 March 2016 N ational D ata G uardian.
Acting on concerns Ralph Tomlinson Head of Invited Reviews.
Wellbeing and mental health Hard evidence: a mental health case study Heema Shukla Independent Policy Developer Wellbeing and mental health.
Health and Wellbeing VCS Forum
Oral Health Management of Patients at Risk of Medication-related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Published March 2017.
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Hearing Aids Local commissioners working with local people for a healthier.
Sustainability and Transformation Partnership
National data opt-out - Implementation approach
Uterovaginal Prolapse
Clinically Effective Commissioning (CEC)
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Vasectomy Local commissioners working with local people for a healthier.
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Penile Procedures Local commissioners working with local people for a.
Homeopathy & Iscador Treatment
Cholecystectomy for Gallstones
Keeping in touch with NICE
Choice – 6 Steps, 6 Actions, 6 Weeks
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine
Patient Involvement in the HTA Decision Making Process
Hillingdon CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
Uterovaginal Prolapse
CVD Optimal Service Design Workshop Defining “what to change” using the NHS Right Care methodology Part of the NEW Devon Way.
Methotrexate in Psoriasis Shared Care Guidelines
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Hernia Local commissioners working with local people for a healthier.
Maternity and Neonatal, Skin, Vision and Hearing Deep Dive Workshop Understanding “what to change” using the NHS Right Care methodology Part of the NEW.
Elaine Wyllie Executive Director of Joint Commissioning
Initial thinking on clinical commissioning group (CCG) authorisation
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Knee Replacement Local commissioners working with local people for a.
Cancer Optimal Service Design Workshop Defining “what to change” using the NHS Right Care methodology Part of the NEW Devon Way.
Chalzions (Internal Stye or Meibomian Cyst)
National data opt-out - Implementation approach
Discovery In Action Investigating variation in BADS Same Day Surgery rates in a Health Board.
Enfield Patient Participation Groups
Croydon Safeguarding Adults Board
Consultation on Liverpool’s Hospital-Based Orthopaedic and ENT Services for Adults 26 June to 15 September 2017.
for the Surrey Heartlands CCGs
Neurological Services Deep Dive Workshop Understanding “what to change” using the NHS Right Care methodology Part of the NEW Devon Way.
Clinical Audit Summary Guide
Overview of the Children and Families Act 2014
Safeguarding Adults local procedures
Dry Eyes – Lubricant Eye Drops
Harrow CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
Regulating digital health and care
Discovery In Action Investigating variation in BADS Same Day Surgery rates in a Health Board.
Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Correction of Ptosis Local commissioners working with local people for.
Health Service R&D permissions
Consultation and Engagement
What you told us about proposed changes to urgent care in Newcastle
Ambitious new NMC standards and plans for the future
Discovery In Action Investigating variation in BADS Same Day Surgery rates in a Health Board.
About the national data opt-out
The National Data Guardian review & Government response
Improving hospital discharge pathways in East London
National policy perspective
Improving hospital discharge pathways in East London
Presentation transcript:

Adherence to Evidence Based Medicine Programme Evidence Summary Pack (Version 2) Revision Mammoplasty Local commissioners working with local people for a healthier future

About the AEBM Programme Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group, along with our North Central London colleagues, wants to the secure the greatest health impact it can with its resources by adhering as closely as possible to the clinical evidence base available. There is considerable national and international evidence that many procedures offered routinely by the NHS are of limited clinical benefit to patients in some or all circumstances. Therefore there needs to be careful consideration as to whether or not a procedure is going to be of any benefit to an individual patient before deciding to undertake it. To do this we must use the best and most up to date clinical advice and evidence to ensure we have the best chance of delivering a benefit to each individual patient who is put forward for treatment. This  evidence published by the National Institute for Health & Care Excellence(NICE) as well as available evidence published by the Royal Colleges and other Clinical Commissioning Groups. This will also ensure the best value from the services we commission. To ensure this decision making process is applied consistently, Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group along with the other Clinical Commissioning Groups in North Central London, adopted a common policy concerning these procedures that have limited clinical effectiveness in 2012 based on the best available evidence at that time. As the clinical evidence base moves on we are now undertaking a further review to ensure that we are using the best and latest clinical evidence in our decision making. We are also looking at the range of procedures where the evidence base now suggests we need to make changes to the guidance for individual patient situations to avoid the risk of undertaking procedures that have little or no benefit to patients or even where the undertaking of the procedure could result in a risk of harm. Clinical Leaders at the Clinical Commissioning Group with the full support of the Governing Body are leading this review. Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group will engage widely and consult formally on the proposals which emerge, while continuing to work closely with partner Clinical Commissioning Groups in North Central London.

About the Evidence Pack This evidence pack summarises the evidence that the Clinicians working on the AEBM Programme have reviewed prior to the commencement of the consultation process. Due to the nature of many of the documents reviewed it is not possible to repeat the evidence in its entirety. The first version of these Evidence Packs only contained highlights of the information and clinical evidence reviewed and based on feedback from our public this was seen as an oversight and therefore a more comprehensive summary is now being provided. These packs will be made available along with the underpinning documents that were used. The purpose of the Consultation is to enable clinicians, patients, our public and other stakeholders to contribute to the debate including identifying additional evidence that may have been missed by the clinicians working on the programme during the pre-consultation phase. The views of all participants in the consultation along with any additional evidence that comes to light during the consultation programme will be taken through further clinical review at the end of the consultation programme. We would like to thank all who have contributed during the extensive pre-consultation phase (that lasted from September 16 through to March 17) and all who are now taking the time to contribute during the formal consultation phase.

About the Approach Taken In preparing these Evidence Packs we undertook an extensive review of available clinical data and evidence and looked in detail at the evidence used (or at least reviewed) by other Clinical Commissioning Groups during similar exercises. The span of this work included (but was not limited to) the following: NICE BMA Royal Colleges All London CCGs CCGs outside of London including Cambridge, Berkshire, North Staffordshire and many others Guidance documents available from relevant stakeholder websites We then collated the evidence including eligibility criteria that CCGs had reviewed (although it is noted not all may have gone on to implement the changes) and then added in local data such as activity and spend, trend analysis and benchmarking. This collated data and evidence was then reviewed by a wide range of clinicians including secondary care representatives before being summarised into these Evidence Packs for use during the consultation. The purpose of these Evidence Packs is to provide a summary of the extensive clinical review that was undertaken prior to the commencement of the Consultation Period but we recognise that further evidence might come to light during the consultation process and this is the reason for undertaking the consultation before any decisions are made to ensure we have used all of the available evidence in our final decision making processes.

Enfield CCG Evidence Summary NICE Guidance: No related guidance has been published. The following is a short explanation of Revision Mammoplasty: Revision mammoplasty is performed after an earlier augmentation procedure, and patients may wish to be considered for this procedure for a number of reasons including: Size Adjustments – Exchanging implants for a larger or smaller size. Aesthetic Concerns – Implants that show visible lateral displacement, synmastia, ride too high or too low, have rotated within the surgical pocket or that have significant asymmetry. Capsular Contracture – The formation of a scar tissue capsule around an implant is part of the body’s normal healing response. In this case the tissue growth can be overly aggressive, rigid to the touch, cause noticeable malformation or be painful. Implant Replacement – Implants that have become damaged, deflated or ruptured.

Enfield CCG Criteria Summary NCL CCG ORGANISATION CRITERIA AVAILALE NOTES Enfield CCG N There is currently no policy in North Central London for Revision Mammoplasty. There is a related policy for Revision of Breast Augmentation and Reduction Mammoplasty. Barnet CCG Haringey CCG Islington CCG Camden CCG NCL CCG ORGANISATION CRITERIA AVAILABLE NOTES Dorset CCG Y It should be noted that whilst a criteria or evidence exists on the Website of a CCG we may or may not have had the opportunity to confirm whether the policy, proposed threshold or evidence has been enacted or remains in place once enacted. We are simply identifying other CCGs who have undertaken a similar exercise to add their evidence to our own. This caused some confusion with the first version of these Evidence Packs. South East London CCGs

Spend & Activity Data including Trend Analysis and Benchmarking Local commissioners working with local people for a healthier future

Enfield CCG Activity & Spend Data 24 Cost 2015/16 £58,775

Enfield CCG Activity & Spend Trend Analysis

Enfield CCG Benchmarking Data Spend Standardised Per 1,000 Population   Enfield CCG NCL CCGs BHR CCGs WELC CCGs Revision Mammoplasty £33.2 £29.3 £21.3 £18.2

For Further Information contact communications@enfieldccg.nhs.uk or call 0203 688 2814