Skip to main content

Respiratory System: Durham

Volume 478: debated on Thursday 26 June 2008

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his most recent assessment is of the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in County Durham. (211827)

The information is not available in the requested format. However, the following table contains data for the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in County Durham Primary Care Trust (PCT) area. This information is extracted from the “Quality and Outcomes Framework for 2006-07” data tables showing prevalence in PCT areas. The information can be found on the Information Centre for health and social care website at:

County Durham PCTNumber/percentageNumber of practices73Sum of list sizes523,901Sum of COPD register counts11,995COPD unadjusted prevalence (percentage)PCT2.3England1.4 Notes:Definition of prevalenceQuality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) prevalence information for 2006-07 is based on the 8,372 practices that were in the QOF achievement dataset.For 17 of the 19 areas of the clinical domain, the Quality Management and Analysis System (QMAS) captures the number of patients on the clinical register for each practice. (The other two clinical areas, depression and smoking indicators, are based on subsets of other clinical registers.) The number of patients on the clinical registers can be used to calculate measures of disease prevalence, expressing the number of patients on each register as a percentage of the number of patients on practices’ lists.Raw prevalence for each clinical area is defined as a percentage of patients on a practice list:Raw prevalence = (number on clinical register/number on practice list) x 100 QOF prevalenceIt is important to emphasise that QOF registers do not necessarily equate to prevalence, as defined by epidemiologists. For example, prevalence figures based on QOF registers (eg obesity) may differ from prevalence figures from other sources because of coding or definitional issues. QOF registers are constructed to underpin indicators on quality of care. QMAS only uses ‘Read codes’ that are common to all three versions. It is difficult to interpret year-on-year changes in the size of QOF registers. For example, a gradual rise in QOF prevalence could be due partly to epidemiological factors (such as an ageing population) or due partly to increased case finding.