OpenPrescribing Improvement Radar

What this tool does

This tool identifies sub-ICB locations (SICBLs) which have shown substantial improvement across each of our OpenPrescribing measures. The five SICBLs with the largest improvement are reported. We hope this will stimulate discussion with areas that have made effective changes so that successful strategies can be shared.

How it works

The tool currently uses the following criteria to identify improvement:

  • SICBLs needed to be, on average, in the highest 20% during the first 6 months of the time period shown.
  • SICBLs needed to improve to be, on average, in the lowest 50% of SICBLs during the last 6 months of the period shown.
  • The rate of the measure has to decrease by at least 5% across the time period shown (calculated as the difference between the average rate for the first 6 months and the last 6 months).
  • There needed to be, on average, at least 50 prescription items written.

We are continuing to review how we might further optimise these criteria to detect even more interesting changes in future. For example, we may be able to introduce elements of a ‘trend indicator saturation’ methodology (which we have used in previous research). You can find more information on this here, including a podcast on our work with Professor Ben Goldacre.

Interpretation notes

These pilot results are provided for the interest of advanced users, although we don't know how relevant they are in practice. There is substantial variation in prescribing behaviours, across various different areas of medicine. Some variation can be explained by demographic changes, or local policies or guidelines, but much of the remaining variation is less easy to explain.

We are keen to hear your feedback on this tool and how you use it. You can do this by emailing us at [email protected]. Please do not include patient identifiable information in your feedback.

This tool currently uses prescribing data between November 2018 and November 2023. We plan to update the tool every 3 months.

Table of Contents

No organisations met the technical criteria for detecting substantial change on this measure.

No organisations met the technical criteria for detecting substantial change on this measure.

Number of organisations with improvement identified: 2

Number of organisations with improvement identified: 5