We have detected that you are using Internet Explorer to visit this website. Internet Explorer is now being phased out by Microsoft. As a result, NHS Digital no longer supports any version of Internet Explorer for our web-based products, as it involves considerable extra effort and expense, which cannot be justified from public funds. Some features on this site will not work. You should use a modern browser such as Edge, Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. If you have difficulty installing or accessing a different browser, contact your IT support team.
How to implement the IAPT data set
To assist new and existing users during implementation of the IAPT data set, please refer to the IAPT v2.0 Implementation Planning Template which provides details of relevant activities during implementation.
You can also refer to the full implementation guidance available from the DCB1520 information standard. Section 3.5 contains a step-by-step guide for new and existing users.
Data required from 1 September 2020
The requirements specification, available from the DCB1520 information standard, defines the scope of the data set, what is required from providers and how NHS Digital will assess that a provider has complied with submitting the data to meet this legal requirement.
IAPT Data Set v2.0 – DCB1520 Amd 14/2019
Version 2.0 of the IAPT Data Set received approval from the Data Coordination Board to start collection from 1 September 2020.
The ISN and formal standard documentation for IAPT v2.0 is published on the DCB1520 webpage.
Update – 30 October 2019
A corrigendum has been published on the DCB1520 webpage to provide notice of corrections to version 2.0 of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Data Set. The corrections relate to:
- inclusion of an Integrated IAPT-LTC indicator
- correction to an error in the format listed for a data item
- amendment to group notes for IDS004EmpStatus
- amendment to UID for a data item
The updated Technical Output Specification, Data Model, System Conformance Checklist and SNOMED mapping documents, have been updated and published below that reflect these changes.
|Document||Current version||Last updated|
|IAPT v2.0 Technical Output Specification||2.0.25||04 November 2020|
|IAPT v2.0 Data Model||2.0.15||18 October 2019|
|IAPT v2.0 User Guidance||1.3||27 October 2020|
|IAPT v2.0 Guidance for submitting data on individuals in the Perinatal Period||1.0||13 May 2020|
|Mapping guidance from v1.5 to v2.0||3.0||19 February 2020|
|IAPT v2.0 Terminology Mapping Guidance||3.3||17 July 2020|
|IAPT v2.0 System Conformance Checklist||2.0.14||20 February 2020|
|IAPT data set fair processing guidance||1.0||23 April 2020|
|IAPT data set guidance for recording internet enabled therapy||1.0||15 July 2020|
*Please note that the Employment advisers in IAPT data handbook is published on the IAPT Future collaboration platform, part of the Future NHS collaboration platform. If you do not have a Future NHS collaboration platform account, you can click on the following link and follow the registration process: Future NHS collaboration platform.
Pilot data guidance
Version 2.0 now contains all of the necessary data requirements for the Employment Advisers and integrated health pilots collections, so these requirements will no longer be detailed in separate specifications.
How to submit data via SDCS Cloud
The IAPT Data Set is changing its submission platform, from the Bureau Service Portal (BSP) to the Strategic Data Collection Service (SDCS Cloud), for version 2.0.
For information and guidance on the SDCS Cloud, including how to register for a user account and guidance on submitting data, please see the Strategic Data Collection Service (SDCS) Cloud web page.
IAPT intermediate Database (IDB)
The intermediate database (IDB) is now available for download for IAPT v2.0 submissions from September 2020 data onwards. Before submission, your data must be entered into the latest version of the IDB. The intermediate database (IDB) is a tool which enables the collation of data for submission of the IAPT data. It is a Microsoft Access database and data must be provided in this format. Once all data has been uploaded to the IDB, NHS Digital can extract the data as a whole and begin processing it.
The database can only be accessed and downloaded from the NHS Digital Technology Reference Data Update Distribution (TRUD) pages. Previously the IDB was available to users via the NHS Digital Contact Centre, however this is no longer applicable.
If you are not already registered on TRUD, you can register via the link on the TRUD homepage. Once registered, the IDB is located via the ‘data set development services tools’ link and new users will need to click on ‘licences’ which will enable a ‘download’ link to open.
When you submit data to SDCS Cloud, the system generates a report describing the data quality errors and warnings present in your submission.
In July 2020, we delivered a webinar which explored DQ issues and provides guidance on how to improve data quality in your submissions.
Here's a recording of the webinar:
View a transcript of this webinar recording
Give it another minute or so just to allow more people to join and then we will make a start.
OK, well we are past 11 so I am going to make a start.
Welcome everyone to this webinar where we are going to be talking about the migration to Version 2 of the IAPT data set and the migration to the new submission service, SCDS Cloud. We will be using this session to focus primarily on Data Quality.
My name is Paul Arrowsmith and I am the Delivery Manager for IAPT Migration, and we also have Amol who is one of our Senior Developers, and he is going to be helping me with part of the presentation.
So just a bit of housekeeping before we get going. We are expecting a fairly large number of attendees, so to avoid any excessive background noise, we are going to mute everybody as they join the call.
Similarly, with the large numbers we missed that struggling with bandwidth, so can I just ask that everybody disables their camera please. And again, just to keep everybody on mute if we can. If anybody has any comments or questions. If you can raise those through the chat.
facility, that would be appreciated. Just to make you aware, we are recording the webinars so that we can make it available on our website for people who have been unable to attend.
In terms of structure, I am going to spend the first 10 minutes or so giving him an overview of the delivery, how we've got to this point, and also calling out a couple of actions we need from you on the run up to Go-Live.
Apologies for those of you that attended the webinar few days ago. This introduction will largely be the same as in the previous webinar, and now there's one or two new pieces of information, but generally it will be the same, so it's going to be a little bit of a recap for those of you that were on the last one after the introduction, I'll hand over to Amol who will give us an overview of DQ reports and how to go about addressing the DQ Issues that you might come across in your submissions, and that should leave us with about 30 minutes to go through any questions you might have, which hopefully should be plenty of time.
I should also point out that we have other people on the call, including Gavin Harrison from the Data Set Development Service. So, between us we should be able to answer any questions you have.
So just looking at the timeline for this delivery first and I will point out that the colour code first so everything in blue, are items specific to the version 2 data set and the submissions to SDCS Cloud.
The yellow items are version 1.5 items and relate to BSP submissions and then the items in Grey, is the work we have been doing preparing the SDCS Cloud platform ready for Go-Live.
So, going back to Autumn 2019. That is when the version 2 ISN was published, and the key activities I have called out here in terms of preparing for SDCS Cloud are really about risk mitigation.
Some of you may have been involved in the onboarding of Mental Health or Maternity datasets to SDCS Cloud last year, and you will be aware that there were some issues around those deliveries. So, we try to address those with the IAPT data set.
First at the beginning of March we migrated all active users from BSP, so at least that cohort of users did not need to go through the manual registration process. And then we ran two phases of private beta, one at the end of March and then again between the 13th of May on the 9th of June.
Obviously, you are all aware that we were originally on a path to go live on the 1st of May, but because of the COVID situation, the decision was taken to extend BSP for a further three months. It was this decision really that gave us the opportunity to run this second phase of private beta, which gave us some valuable learning which I will come onto later. I am looking at the timeline for data submissions.
BSP submissions have been ongoing each month throughout this timeline, and the last BSP submission will open on the 4th of September for July refresh data. And will close on the 25th of September.
In parallel with that, we have the first submission window and SDCS Cloud opening on the 1st of September for August primary and
closing on the same day as the BSP window on the 25th of September. And then finally, on the 1st of October we’re operating purely in an SDCS Cloud world with the submission window opening for August refresh and September primary.
If you would like to see other submission dates, these can be found on the IAPT webpages on our website. What I should just point out though, is that we have recently taken a decision considering the DQ issues that we’re going to come on and discuss. To give submitters more time to resolve any DQ issues this August refresh window will be extended by another month.
So, from the 1st of November. The standard windows of September refresh and October primary collections will still be taken, but it will still be possible to continue submitting August refresh for that month as well. So, all in all, you will have three months covering August data.
So just a few more words about registration then. This webinar (or at least a version of it) was first delivered on the 28th of February. A bit of a typo there, sorry, was the 28th of February not the 26th of February, but it was around about the end of February and some of you may well have dialled into that call and following on from that we automatically migrated 98 active users from BSP onto SDCS Cloud.
The thing is that the use of SDCS Cloud is dependent on two factor authentications to verify the user’s identity. So, the message in that first webinar was really targeted at those 98 users to encourage them to log onto SDCS and complete their two-factor authentication setup so that any issues are resolved ahead of Go- Live.
And as of 16th of April, going back a little bit in time now, we were already in a good place. 50% of those users had done that set up. With the three-month extension and the flurry of activity around the private beta, we put this registration work on hold for a while, but we are now picking it up as we head towards the 1st of September.
Since the migration in March, we have had 41 new users that have followed the manual registration process. And following the private beta they have been added now to the SDCS Cloud user base. So now we have about 90 users that still need to complete their registration.
So, at the bottom there, in the penultimate bullet point. Those 90 users, it is imperative that those 90 users, if they have not already done so, log onto SDCS Cloud and complete your two-factor authentication so that we avoid any registration issues in the Go-Live. This is something that hit us hard during the on boarding of the Mental Health and Maternity datasetsso I cannot stress enough the importance of completing this action. Just a word about the note at the bottom, if you already use SDCS Cloud, say for Mental Health or Maternity submissions. If you were also part of that migration of IAPT accounts from BSP. You just need to confirm which email address is associated with each account. So, if you are using different email addresses for SDCS Cloud BSP, then you will still need to complete the two-factor authentication on your migrated account. If the addresses are the same, then you’re good to go. The migration will have handled everything for you.
So, I am going to come on and give you an overview. Give you a flavour of what happened in private beta.
As you can see, we had 19 sites involved, although this was 19 organisations. Some of the organisations have multiple sites, so in total we had 35 sites involved in the private beta. There is a little bit of sensitivity here because I put the sites in order of how successful they were in eliminating or reducing the DQ errors. So, I have anonymised the names of the sites involved.
The main thing I want to get across here looking in the second column is the number of times the sites had to submit data. And I should point out that this was over the course of both phase one and phase two of the private beta. But there is a significant number of submissions that had to be made to get the level of success that we achieved in private beta, and that is the key learningfrom the private beta that we want sites to take forward into the Go- Live. The final three columns show the statistics for their final and generally best submission. In terms of the colour coding here, colour coded Green means that the final submission was completely successful, so the file was accepted into downstream processing and none of the records were rejected. All the ones in Amber had some level of record level rejections, but you can see in terms of the volume of the file and the number of records rejected, the volumes are very low. So it gives us a high degree of confidence that we are going to get good DQ out of these submissions.
So, the key findings from the private beta then. I think the first thing to understand is that the private beta was based purely on data from December 2019. The idea being to compare the publication measures from the private beta with those presented in the actual December publication from BSP and on the whole we found a pretty good match between the publication and the private beta measures, which gives us, as I say, it gives us confidence that we're in a strong position for go live. As I said, it took a significant number of submissions with the private beta sites working iteratively to eliminate DQ errors.
The SDCS Cloud service provides DQ reports back to users, but they do have a different format from those
provided by BSP and we realised during these private betas that the sites were sometimes struggling to understand how to use these reports. So, we've taken that learning and used it to produce a guidance document which is now available on the SDCS Cloud pages on our website. And in a minute Amol is going to focus on these DQ issues and provide an overview of the DQ guidance document.
So, the second action I want you to take from this is to recognise the issues experienced by the private beta sites. Take in what Amol says over the next few minutes. Try and make time to review the DQ guidance document in more detail.
And critically, please try and submit data as soon as possible after the 1st of September to give yourself enough time to work on your own DQ over the course of that first submission window. I will ask if anyone is going to have a problem in submitting data early, please put something in the chat facility so that we understand the issues you are experiencing at a local level and we can perhaps look at ways to help you out.
OK, so that is it for me. I am going to take a breather and hand over to Amol who is going to cover the DQ section.
Over to you Amol.
Hello and Good Morning everyone and thank you for joining this webinar.
The main objective of this webinar is to understand validation error types and how effectively we can identify those fail records and how easily and quickly we can correct them. So higher data quality will be achieved in each submission. These slides in Data Quality have been prepared based on our experience of pilot 1 and pilot 2.
So, in principle there are 4 main types of validations, first one is file level rejection, record level rejection. A group level rejection which further can be subdivided into more than one group submitted and no valid group submitted and the last one is warnings. So first most important one is file level rejection. So, file rejection is a validation error that highlights a specific data quality. If this is triggered, the whole file will be rejected so we need to be careful of when submitting data so that no validation error with the trigger of this type. So, have just given a simple example. There are a few mandatory tables in the IAPT data set. One of them is a header, and if the header table is empty, the system will trigger IDSREJ002 Failed Content Check.
Header table is empty, and the whole file will be rejected. There are few other file level rejections which you can identify and go through the Technical Output Specification (TOS), there is separate tab in the TOS for file level rejection.
Second type of rejections are a type of record level rejections. And this type, particularly, a validation is that highlights a data issue in a specific column and which causes the whole record to be rejected, even though the file will process the rest of the record. But it will significantly reduce, or it will reduce depending on how many other record level rejections are present in the file. So, this is an example of IDS002 GP table. It's mainly a pretty standard error where local patient ID is more than 20 characters and first record on this table will be rejected with a record level rejection, which is IDS00202, where local patient ID has incorrect data format. This type of error is easy to identify from data quality report, LPI00000........1 I a key. So, you can easily identify and correct. And this is pretty standard across most of the record level rejection where those key values are present in the DQ report to identify those records which are causing problems.
Third one is a group level rejection. This this is divided into 2 types, more than one group submitted, and no valid group submitted. So first one - more than one group submitted. This is very easy to identify, it is like just a standard, a primary key or a composite key type of validation. So, we purposely tried to put a composite key validation example from IDS007 table.
If these two records are submitted in the submission file, then a group level rejection will be triggered because there is a duplicate local patient identifier plus disability code combination. So, it is a composite key duplicate record. There are other types of group level rejection where it looks for a single column to identify duplicate record. But in this example, it looks for a combination of local patient ID and DisabCode and the validation message shows you exactly which keys LPI001 and disability code 01. So, this type of validation is also easy to identify from data quality report.
The next one is No valid group transmitted example; this can occur because of 2 reasons.
Reason 1 in this example we have given where it could be triggered if the record in the child table rejected. There are no corresponding records present in the parent table. So we tried to put a very simple example here which can explain the scenario in IDS001MPI table where no LPI001 record is submitted here but only LPI002 is submitted but in GP table which is a child table of MPI the 2 records are present.
First one is LPI001 and LPI002, so in this case for the first record in GP table there's no corresponding record from MPI table and in this case the system will trigger IDS00220 group rejected as no valid IDS001 group transmitter for this local patient identifier. This type of error is again easy to identify. We will go through in detail in a short while after the next slide the most confusing one is when the record in the child table are rejected when the corresponding records from parent table fail due to validation error. Most significant difference between previous examples and this one in this case LPI002 record is present in both tables. In LPI001 and LPI002 GP table and in previous scenarios, LP002 was not submitted. In this scenario because the record is present.
But ExBAF indicator is invalid, because of that IDS001MPI table record will get rejected with IDS00159 validation error and because MPI table record is getting rejected. System will trigger, there is no corresponding MPI table record for GP table and the system will trigger IDS0220 group rejected. No valid group transmitted for local patient identifier and the question is why we are doing this, reason is because IDS002 record is meaningless if no corresponding parent record from the MPI table and this will preserve referential integrity of the system.
To understand this scenario in more detail, go to this cloud page we have created this SDCS cloud data quality guidance document. When you click on that move on to page 11 It is a very useful document we have put together lot more detailed scenarios and this is a pretty standard guide which is valid across all datasets including MHSDS, Maternity, CSDS as well as IAPT and we have identified the top ten validation errors in pilot 1 and pilot 2, both from IAPT and CSDS, based on that we have drafted this document to help all the sites to identify all the validation errors when you come across group level rejection, how effectively you can tackle it. First you need to check if the record is present in the parent table which can be done easily by filtering data quality reports. If there are any failures in the parent table then there is quite a good chance that this group level rejection is triggered because of parent table rejections and to identify parent child relationship it is on the next page.
We have added parent and child table relationships for each data set. This is IAPT and if you scroll down further the Community as well as Mental Health and Maternity datasets there. So, this table is representing parent child relationship. This is colour coded, for example if there is a group level rejection in IDS006 or IDS007 table then you need to look for its parent which is 202 care activity and if and then you need to travels through right across 201, and the 201 parent is referral and so on. This table will help you to easily and effectively identify parent child relationship and to identify those fail records. I would recommend you go through this data quality guide. I will just quickly show you the index table which gives all the details of validation error types. What common issues and resolving data quality errors. This is very useful document.
The final one is warnings. Warnings are where the validation process identifies and defines an issue with the submitted file but does not reject any records. If there are still some data quality issues and if you correct them you will achieve high data quality stats. In this example like IDS007DisabilityType table where invalid DisabCode is submitted and system will trigger IDS00707 warning. Disability code contains an invalid disability code. Again, it is defined with a key which is LPI1111 and disability code 11.
You can easily identify this type of errors. That is all, we are now open to any questions. Thank you.
Thanks very much Amol. OK I am going start working through the questions that have come through the chat facility.
Gavin can I ask you to help as well? What tends to happen when I do this I answer when things I have been answered further down? So, if any questions and the answers come through while I am talking, please shout out and then I am not repeating things. OK, I am going to scroll back up to the first entry, which is 6 minutes past 11.
Can you do both primary and refresh access file like we did in BSP? This has come up in previous webinars and the answer is no, they are separate. The separate submissions, Saskia has added there, her response that you do need to submit two separate IDB'S, one for primary and one for refresh and as per MHSDS.
Next Question - I am afraid I am going to struggle with this and I'm not sure, if anybody else on the call is going to be able to answer this. This is more an SDCS cloud registration type problem and not sure we've got the relevant people on the call. My understanding is that typically the two factor authentication is through your mobile phone, but there is a desktop application available as a separate option if you don't want to, or you can’t, or you don't have a works phone or whatever the problem
might be with using a mobile. There is an alternative solution and my understanding is that all of those issues that we experienced in the early days of SDCS Cloud have been resolved, but I'm not going to be able to answer this specific question on the Auth Desktop app. Can I just ask people from NHS Digital or anywhere else whom has experience with this? If you can offer any information on that over and above what I have said?
Amol here, there could be an option upgrading your Authy app. I was using the old version and I reinstalled the new version of Authy and then the migration, so you could look for the migration guide on the Authy website.
OK thanks Amol, I hope that helps. Obviously, any further questions, fire them in the chat further down.
So, from Allison. For information, our system, supplier Mayden is not enabling the version two submission until the 10th of September. OK, this is the first time I have heard about it. I was aware of it and we are aware of this with IAPTUS users when we were on the 1st of May trajectory.
They were planning to do the switch over on the 13th May. I was assuming it would be the 13th of September in this case as well, but obviously they decided to go with the 10th now. So, anybody who is and IAPTUS user, you probably had received this communication multiple times from Mayden anyway, but just please be aware that you need to do your final BSP submission before the 10th of September at which point your system will switch over and you will be able to start submitting your first SDCS cloud data.
Please ask if 16 out of 19 pilot sites struggle to provide the submission. And if so, what are the main hurdles? OK, I guess the high level is response the DQ guidance document. The main purpose of that document is really to articulate and provide guidance on the issues that the pilot sites experienced. I guess that would be the high-level answer. There were other things that it is probably worth taking note of. One of the key things that hit us early in the pilot is that the providers were struggling with these submissions, because of lock down, because people were working remotely, a lot of people were struggling with bandwidth, so they did suffer a timeout. So, then they had to find out some way of working remotely on a server to get the submission in rather than using local infrastructure. So, we had a lot of problems like that. So, will we still be in that place 1st of September? I guess a lot of you will be so it's just worth bearing that in mind that that can be an issue if you start seeing a timeout. Typically, it is because of a bandwidth problem with your local infrastructure.
I do not know, there are probably lots of issues we could get out there Amol - is there anything else you wanted to add in terms of what the main hurdles? You’ve obviously called out the group level rejections that you have already talked about? Is there anything else that you specifically like to raise?
No, I think we have a main high-level error to understand validation errors in which we are covering now in our DQ Validation guidance document. So that will really help everyone.
Next question, we cannot make a test submission. The button is grey. Not sure why. OK test submissions. So, this is a functionality that has recently gone live on SDCS cloud. It is currently only available for Mental Health and Maternity. And that is because you need to have a submission window open for the test submission to work. So technically speaking, you are not going to see it for IAPT until the 1st of September. However, we are working with the SDCS Cloud team and trying to get to a position where we can open up a window before the 1st of September, which will allow you to make some tests admissions early and hopefully you will get DQ reports back as part of the test submission. So by allowing you to submit their data say in August, if we can get a window open in August, it would allow you to send those tests admissions in and start testing your DQ issues that you might be experiencing locally. If we manage to resolve that with the SDCS Cloud team, then obviously will communicate that out separately and make everybody aware that that is now available. But as things stand it will not be there until the 1st of September.
Next Question - Where will we be able to find this recording.
So, the recording is probably going to take us a few days because we need to make sure it's satisfying Accessibility rules. We need to do some work on the transcripts once the recording is finished, but hopefully by the end of this week. We make that available, we think at the moment will be publishing it on the IAPT web pages directly, but there may well be a link out to it from the SDCS cloud page as well, because obviously some of the content relates to SDCS cloud.
Next Question - Will the file be rejected if a clinical contact is submitted against care personnel now where no qualification is recorded in the therapist qualification table.
So, this is one for you Gavin.
It will not reject the file so that there are two tables in question here. This the IDS202 characters table where you identify the care personnel. Now it will not cause any problem with that table. If you did happen, then you can capture more details about the qualification of that care personnel in the 902 table. If you do, try to submit that without qualification then just that 902 record would be rejected. But your file would still come through because there is no point submitting a care personnel qualification table. If you do not tell us what qualification is right, answer the original question your file will not be rejected under 202 care activity record will not be rejected over, it would just be care personnel qualification. It is explained a bit more in the technical output specification.
OK thanks Gavin.
Next Question - From the 19 pilot sites be split by the system supplier.
Yes, they can. We do have that information but it’s going to be difficult for me to give you specifics on this call. What I can say is that across those 19 organizations, as I said in my presentation, 5 of them were IAPTUS users. 8 of them were PCMIS users. One was CORE IMS and then the rest of them were Inhouse developed systems. So, it gives you an idea of the split, and certainly with the likes of PCMIS, we went through several iterations with the supplier rather working directly with the sites. So PCMIS probably IAPTUS as well, have done a lot of work on the reports that are generated out of the system, and then they are used to generate the IDB. So, anybody who uses those systems will receive the benefit of all those improvements that were made to the system off the back of the private beta.
Next question - is there a document that summarizes all the possible rejection codes? And what they mean.
So, I think Gavin I saw something where you called out the technical output specification in response to this, I think. Yeah, so that is the first part of the question. It does not answer part about what DQ report would look like out of the system
No, I do not think we provide anything like that in the guidance document do we Amol? Is there anything you can say in response to what the DQ report looks like?
No, it is not in guidance document, but this is if you have access to Mental Health or Maternity then you can download and see the examples. But if not then Paul, is it possible we can like publish a sample DQ report or send them separately?
Yes, and then we could look to publish that on the same page as a guidance document.
Yes, we can, we can take this offline
OK, yes, we will take that action and take that back and then look at that.
Next Question - Is there any list of fields where they were not mandatory before but are now mandatory.
So again, I suppose the high-level response is that it is in the technical output specification, but is there anything else Gavin?
It goes back to when the information standard was published. The document you wanted to change specification. Please look for the
link to the DCB web page. You can see that that just got through the item level of before and after. So, you can compare side by side.
Look in specification on the DCB website.
OK, and then I think there is another one for you here.
Next Question - do records get rejected for spoiler information, EG. When a GP practice end date is after the period end date.
I will double check that one. We do not usually allow future dates because I'm looking at specific reporting period, but I'll just check that specific example.
Yes, if the start date to the GP Registration is after the end of the reporting period then that GP record would be rejected and then as a consequence the patient record would go. So, in the example of the September date, so we would not be expecting a start date in October. For example, we would not want that information till you do your October submission, so that's what's possible causing that.
OK, then there obviously the questions here around where we find the guidance document which Ashley has addressed. Thanks for that Ashley.
Next Question - Do you have any example table to display the DQ from any of the pilot submissions?
We certainly cannot do that today and I think the problem would be sensitive PID data. Because it was live data coming through from the pilots. But what we can do is that sample table that we just talked about, so hopefully that will satisfy that requirement.
Next Question - Do all records need an NHS number?
Again, Gavin I will let you take this one.
Yes, technically we do, wherever possible, expect to submit that but it’s not mandatory though. But if you do not submit, you will get a warning. The other caveat with that is it's got to be valid in NHS number. If it fails Modulus 11 checks, then it will actually reject the entire file. We have got to use a valid NHS number to any testing. So no, you don't have to submit it, but if you do submit that would expect it to be a valid one, but you may get warnings if you don't submit additional, so the message is try and submit it and make sure they are valid.
OK thanks Gavin, there is a few comments here about that authorisation on SDCS Cloud, so thanks.
For those of you that have submitted those comments.
Next Question - The main issue we had with the beta submission was out of areas which don't have a CCG code. As we don't have every out of area GP surgery on our system, is it recommended to change this, so we include the outer area CCG codes?
Yes, this rings a bell actually from the private beta, Gavin or Amol.
There are a few places where we capture the CCG code so I might be answering about the wrong area. We do try and capture in the GP table or it is not a mandatory field. So again, if you don't have that information your system and it's a required field then we don't expect to try and get that. You do need it in the referral table though. It is mandatory there. So, do not know if that will cause an issue there. You will have to submit a code for the organization identified for the code of commissioner. Usually would expect that it is going to be the commissioner. It is your own commissioner. Most the time would expect, but I think the example given here was that now say it looks like it was around the GP Table, yes if it's in the case, the GP table and you generally don't have that, we can do local mapping as far as derivations. What should I figure out what the CCG responsible for that one is so you can leave that one blank in the GP table? Would expect that in the referral table because you are the ones submitted this referral that you it probably your CCG that is responsible for that. Hopefully that answers your question, but if not, do follow up.
Yep, OK, thanks.
Next question from Samuel. I got migrated to SDCS from BSP but only have access to just one teams data.
They are asking me to complete a separate DUC form for each of the services before I can gain access to the rest. This cannot be right.
I am not sure totally understand the question, I think it probably is correct. If I'm reading it correctly, the fact of the matter is, is that you need to have approval from your SIRO to say that, you're permitted to have access to particular data set.
So yes, it is right that you need to submit separate forms for Mental Health, Maternity, Community and IAPT if that is what you're asking then yes, that is right. We need to have that clarity around each data set.
I am assuming that's what you mean. I think we got Tanya on the call. Please jump in if there is anything else you wanted to add around that, but.
No, that was absolutely spot on, so yes, we need to have a form for each organization and for each data set. Yes, thanks Tanya, unless I have misunderstood the question, in which case please send something else into the chat.
Next Question - The issue I found with the two-factor authentication was that because they can be different times on the mobile and computer month 30 seconds apart, it can fail. So, it is better to use the desktop app for the authenticator instead of the mobile. OK, that is interesting. Thanks for that, that might be useful for other people if they are experiencing the same problems with the mobile.
Next Question - can we submit blank GP start and end dates for GP practice Codes submitted in the GP practice table?
Technically can do just one thing to bear in mind. We will only know we need to know what your GP is to decide which CCG it belongs to. So, if you don't submit any start and end dates, you're going to be able to submit one GP practice because otherwise we wouldn't know which is the relevant one. So, if you are trying to submit more than 2 records with no start and end dates, then would reject both of those and then as a consequence reject the patient tables.
You can do. We would definitely prefer to see the start and end dates there, but if you generally don't capture those in your system, that there is a way around that, but it must only be one record so we will assume that is the active GP Practice about that patient.
Next Question - I have some concerns regarding the time that submissions are likely to take. We don't have a full-time data lead or a IT team. Do you have any idea how long this process will last be based on an average amount of rejections? I could see that some services had to make 20 plus submissions would be good to know how much time to free up in the diary.
It is a good question, really. I guess, What we're trying to do is mitigate against all of that, and the fact that we're on the private beta and we went through all of that work with those pilot organisations it’s enabled us to to home in on exactly what the problems were. As I said, if you're a PCMIS or an IAPTUS user it’s likely that you'll benefit from the problems that they found and fixed in their systems, so you're starting from a better position than the pilot sites, and then, as I say, we've run this webinar, we've developed the guidance document, we are giving an extended window period for the August submission, and as we talked about earlier as well, we're trying to get the test submissions up and running before the 1st of September if we can. We think by putting all that package together we think it is going to help organisations out and you won't need to go through quite as many iterations as the pilot sites. In terms of timing, it,s quite difficult to put a figure on it. It obviously depends on how many people are submitting data at the same time, but typically we were able to turn it around quickly in terms of the submission itself. I can't answer for how long it took the providers to build the data in the first place. Maybe if somebody wanted to post the information into the chat, feel free to do so, but in terms of the submission itself, we were experiencing pretty good turn around rates, so people typically receiving the DQ reports in a matter of minutes following the submission. Certainly, we did some tests halfway through the private beta where we confirmed that every single site definitely received the DQ reports within 15 minutes for instance.
So yes, this submission process itself is straightforward, did not seem to have much of a time impact. But it will depend on the number of the DQ issues and any work you can do up front to interpret the DQ guidance, and absorb what Amol's gone through today I think that would definitely help.
Next Question - you mentioned using the two-factor authentication on work mobile phones, I will send it to the desktop version of the app.
can you use own mobile phones for this?
Yes, I think Amol has responded and said you can use personal mobile phones and Next Question - Just to clarify, submit for RVN and RVNCG, do I need separate cloud registrations?
OK, it is a good job you are on the call Tanya. Because it's two separate organisations. They would have the same SIRO, but to register for both, you would need two separate registration DUC forms. Thanks Tanya, you got me out of a hole there.
Next Comment that the first MHSDS submission I did on SDCS Cloud took 5 submissions to achieve 0 rejections, each one took maybe 2 to three hours.
OK, that's useful insight there in terms of the local impact in terms of building the submissions. Hopefully that helps to give you some insight.
Thanks for that.
Next Comment - I was also involved in the pilot. We used IAPTUS and it took me quite some time to extract all the individual tables to create the IDB. The actual submission to the portal is quite quick, getting a successful submission is another kettle of fish.
Yes, I mean we worked a lot with them and other people in the pilot to work all the DQ issues. And as I say, that's why we've tried to provide as much guidance and assistance as we can. So I think you just need to be mindful of the fact that you know it is going to take some time to do this iterative work, and that's why we're keen to get people submitting as early as possible in that submission window. To give themselves as much time as possible to get through that work.
Yes, resubmission work takes us around 1.5 to two days to do.
OK, I think that’s got us to the end of the chat.
So hopefully we have addressed everything.
A few more comments coming through about the length of time it is going to take.
Next Question - is there going to be any direct helpline or team specifically for the first few submissions to guide us to understand where items are getting rejected? Until we are familiar with DQ reports?
Yes, I mean, we are still working through exactly what level of support we are going to provide. Working with NHS England in this regard, but certainly there will be our standard service management approach to registering issues and specifically DQ issues and there will be some level of support and I think also, if any of you had an experience with our Data Liaison Team.
We are thinking of drafting that team in so we may be working in a more proactive way with you as well.
Looking out for sites that perhaps haven't submitted or having issues with submission and then working with those sites directly to resolve those issues, so we're looking at options around that and will send further communications out, but will definitely be more support available to sites in those first few weeks.
Next Question - Is there any additional funding available? The answer to that as you'd expect is no, it depends on how much of an extra workload it is I suppose, I guess that the hope would be that all these mitigations around DQ that the extra workload will not be that much significantly more than what you suffer with BSP.
An interesting point raised here. The main hold up with progressing MHSDS submissions in the first month was the time taken to get response from National Service Desk. I think that is right. I think we’ve probably moved on quite a lot since that time though, so obviously the platform itself was brand new as well for Mental Health, and we have had a stable platform for about 12 months now. And we were also suffering a lot with registrations, which is why we put a lot of effort into the registrations for IAPT and a lot of those calls actually were to do with password resets, and that's again, that's new functionality that's been introduced to SDCS Cloud, so it's now possible to reset your own password and you are no longer dependent on National Service Desk to do that. So, I think there are a few things in place that mean we should be in a better place when we Go Live with IAPT compared with that Mental health Go Live.
OK, again, I think I have got to the end, but I'm going to keep this open for a few minutes anyway.
So, if anybody does have questions, please keep posting. Lisa, can I just ask you to post the standard data processing email address?
Because what I was going to say obviously like I say, keep posting questions through to the chat facility, but if you do think of anything else after the webinar, or you just want to take it offline for whatever reason please send emails into our data processing email address that Lisa is going to post in a short while, and we will pick those up offline.
And there it is - email@example.com.
Next Question - Is that the link that you provided Gavin?
Yes, I have provided the direct link to the document.
OK, as I said, I am going to keep this webinar open for little while, but I am conscious people are starting to leave so I will just offer my thanks. Thanks very much for everybody who has joined. Appreciate you taking time out for this webinar today.
So just posted the link directly to change classification.
Next Question - asking when will the recording of the webinar from today will be available?
OK, well sorry, I have done, my machine seems to be on the go slow all of a sudden. Yes, so as I said before, we need to do some work on making the webinar and making the recording. Making sure it meets accessibility rules, so we need to do a little bit of work on that and producing a formal transcript for it. And we think that probably take the rest of this week, so we aim to get it published towards the end of this week, maybe early next week.
OK, it does look like the questions are drying up a little bit now, so I think I'm going to draw this to a close, but as I say, if anybody come just think of anything else they want to ask.
Please send the questions through to that email address that Lisa posted earlier. OK, thanks very much everybody and will close it there. Goodbye.
Monthly submission dates
*The submission deadline for September 2020 Refresh data has been extended to Tuesday 29 December 2020 to allow providers additional time to prepare their first IAPT v2.0 submissions. The same submission deadline of Tuesday 29 December 2020 still applies for October 2020 Refresh data.
Submission window opens
Submission window closes
Sep 20 (P)
Thu 01 Oct 2020
Tue 27 Oct 2020
*Sep 20 (R) & Oct 20 (P)
Sun 01 Nov 2020
Thu 26 Nov 2020
*Sept 20 (R) Oct 20 (R) & Nov 20 (P)
Fri 27 Nov 2020
Tue 29 Dec 2020
Nov 20 (R) & Dec 20 (P)
Fri 01 Jan 2021
Thu 28 Jan 2021
Dec 20 (R) & Jan 21 (P)
Mon 01 Feb 2021
Thu 25 Feb 2021
Jan 21 (R) & Feb 21 (P)
Mon 01 Mar 2021
Thu 25 Mar 2021
Feb 21 (R) & Mar 21 (P)
Thu 01 Apr 2021
Thu 29 Apr 2021
Mar 21 (R) & Apr 21 (P)
Sat 01 May 2021
Fri 28 May 2021
Download a PDF of the IAPT submission timetable.
How to get help
If you have a general enquiry about the data set, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org or telephone us on 0300 303 5678.
Keep up to date with IAPT data set news and updates
There are various ways that you can keep up to date with the latest IAPT news and information.
Mental Health Information Updates
The Mental Health Information Update newsletter is issued once a month and contains the latest news on the Mental Health and IAPT data sets.
Once you have subscribed to the Mental Health Update, you will receive other communications about up and coming events and other important news and information. Please take the time to read through these communications.
Mental health data hub
The mental health data hub is a collection of interactive dashboards and useful links covering mental health data in England.
IAPT providers and system suppliers events – November 2019
Thank you to everyone who came to our IAPT stakeholder events, held in Leeds and London during November. We hope attendees found the updates useful and the feedback we received on the day was invaluable. Please follow the link below to view the presentations slides from the events:
IAPT v2.0 implementation webinars
As part of the IAPT v2.0 implementation process, a number of implementation webinars were held for providers, suppliers and other stakeholders, to provide further information and guidance regarding the implementation of the changes in the IAPT v2.0 data set.
Please note that any references to the IAPT v2.0 launch date may be out of date and should be disregarded.
The correct IAPT v2.0 go-live date is referenced throughout this web page.
View a transcript of this webinar recording
Employment Advisors in IAPT webinar transcript
Hello, it's one minute past two so I'll make a start and go through the housekeeping slide just while people continue to join the webinar.
I'm Gavin Harrison at NHS Digital and I work in the Data Set Development Team.
Do try and stay on mute unless you are actually asking specific questions, because there are quite a lot of
what we're talking about.
If you do wish to ask a question, if you can do it through the team chats icon and we will try and get back to you in the chat if we can do.
And if we aren't able to answer questions during the webinar, then you can follow that up via NHS Digital Enquiries e-mail address that you can see there. We are going to record this webinar, that will assist us in making sure that we can follow up on any questions that are asked during the webinar and we will make the presentation slides available on the IAPT Web pages
after the webinar.
So I'll just move on to the introductions. I'm Gavin Harrison. I work in the Data Set Development Service in NHS Digital.
I started working on the IAPT Data Set in March this year to oversee the development of the IAPT version 2 update and its transition onto the new platform.
I have worked in the data set development service for a few years
on other datasets, but I'm taking over from my colleague Aaron Leathley as he was moved on to another area.
I'll let Aaron introduce himself.....
Good afternoon everyone. Yes so I recently moved over to the mental health services data set, but
I'm just joining this webinar today to support any questions and answers anyone may have.
Also from the Data Set Development service we've got Jane cleave and Emma Sheppard.
(Hello) and also on the line we have our colleagues from DWP Kevin and Lyndon (Hello) Kevin and Lyndon (Hello)
So I'll start moving through.
Slide 2 – IAPT Data Set
I have done an introduction slide because I'm aware that we've got quite a wide audience on this call and it might benefit some of you to go through what the IAPT data set actually is.
So if you weren't aware, the IAPT data set has been collected for secondary uses since April 2012
and it's a mandatory submission for all NHS funded IAPT care including care delivered by independent sector health care providers.
It feeds into monthly, quarterly and annual reporting of key measures and it's used by National bodies, such as an NHS England, commissioners, journalists, research and academics, and the wider general public.
Slide 3 – Summary of changes
And that's what the IAPT data set is at the moment and the IAPT data set version 2 is what we're talking about here.
This was considered largely over the summer of last year, so the IAPT outcomes and Informatics Group at the time collected the requirements and some of the changes align with wider NHS data requirements
and some of the changes align with wider NHS data requirements such as sexual orientation and gender.
And also align with over data modelling across other national data sets such as the mental health service data set.
And then the changes instigated by the employment adviser initiative initiative are going to be summarized in the next slides, but the full technical changes, you can find them on the full Technical Output Specification on the IAPT web page.
Slide 4 - IAPT v1.5 Data Model
This is what the IAPT version 1.5 data model look like at present. So in the top left there you can see there's a person table and then in the middle there's your referral, which connects to an appointment in the top right and for the employment adviser pilot, that's the bit in the green box down the bottom right.
So for those who are collecting that that's what you were collecting in version 1.5.
Slide 5 – IAPT v2.0 Data Model
For version two, like I just mentioned, the structure has been modified quite significantly to align with over
datasets will move into this next slide here, so that does look quite different. Structural are so you can see in the middle of silver passions and the referral is the blue box down the bottom middle and the old idea of an appointment that's been replaced with the Contacts to align with one of the other data sets do without year 201 purple table to right there, but crucially for what we're talking
Can see the employment status tables to the left. That idea 004 table. That's how that connects. I will
go into a lot more detail about how they all connected together a bit later in the presentation, but that's just kind of a general overview of the full. I updated search, just give some context about how it fits into that. We thought that might help. Just set some of the tone about where we go into next.
Slide 6 – IAPT v2.0 Implementation Roadmap
Yes, so the Road map about how we got to this here, then. So back in September last year, the information stands, notes right version two was published and that gave the detail of the data model issues on the previous page, but that also broke down those individual distractions in the tables around whether they mandatory, what the formats were, etc. We followed up with some national events in Leeds and London, which I'm sure a lot of you will have attended those back in November 2019 and in February this year. Circulated provider readiness questionnaire. As a result of that readiness questionnaire, we did receive some feedback that I think some of you said Welcome some additional support webinars and they were held towards the end of February early March and at the same time that we did a pilot submission exercise of IP version two data onto the new submission platform. The SD CS cloud, and obviously rather once we got to work. That was the original plan and go live date, but COVID-19 is recognized that.
Uh, trying to deal with that for your frontline support purposes as well as impression of deaths out that we really did need to delay the Golive death by three months. And then in yellow they can see that's where we are now. So this is the additional support webinars on the employment adviser and Internet Enabled Therapies. The Internet Enabled Therapies webinar was held yesterday and know some of you will have been on that and we will be putting the slides for that on the website also, if you didn't manage to join that webinar. And just at the end of last week there was a second pilot submission to the SDCS Cloud and that has definitely helped us Tweak how we're going to implement IAPT version 2 when we do go live.
The slide says that July 2020 is when local data set collection commences for IAPT version 2. Officially, that's the case right now but I'm just going to bring in my colleague Andrew Armitage from NHS England who can possibly elaborate on that. just possibly can elaborate further on that. Andrew Armitage: Yes thanks Gavin, unfortunately I can't give a definite answer either way as it stands at the moment, there are meetings taking place throughout today whereby it's being discussed, and we're looking at the readiness in terms of the readiness of NHS digital, in terms of accepting submissions and the validations and the reporting and as Gavin said said a lot of that is being tested and tested really well through the pilots that have been running.
But we're also looking at the readiness of providers and system suppliers. Whether they're there, ready to
submit data, whether they have priorities elsewhere in terms of Covid. So we're looking at all that as a package, and hopefully making a decision today and will then be able to communicate it out as soon as possible, so either tomorrow or Monday. Gavin: Thank you Andrew. So obviously on the basis of that implementation timeline, the next 4 rows on the table are what's to come, so if there is a delay on that implementation date that obviously all these will move forward accordingly. But it was indeed July 2020 local data collection starting then you'd be starting your submissions of August 2020 data. From August and then there were the final deadline of June 2020. Refresh debt to this image. The Bureau services part sold by the 27th of August and then the final deadline for the 1st July 2020 refresh date to the cloud by the 25th September and then the first publication date about version 2 available in October and November 21. So like I said, there's fall rose could change if wonder just talk about this change. And I think after this slide it might be where I handle with her my colleagues at DWP.
Slide 7 - Employment Support Data in Version 2 of IAPT Data Set (10:00)
Yes OK, Linden are you on the call and you ready to go?
Well it’s me first anyway. If he's not, I'll have to try and do the technical bit at the back, which could be a bit tricky as I'm not that technically accomplished at this sort of stuff.
Slide 8 – EA in IAPT (10:42)
So myself and Linden from the Joint Work and Health Unit, which is the joint unit of both.
We will both be presenting today. I'll be doing a little bit of a contextual piece about EA in IAPT generally and some of the overarching issues about the old data and what some of the problems were and then Linden will come in, hopefully with a piece where he will talk to people about some of the some of the issues around the changes in the way you would collect and record the data, but certainly in terms of the collection of this data which we think is very important.
Employment support always been part of the IAPT service model, so when you go back to Layard and Clark back in 2004 when Layard wrote the Depression Report and Layard and Clark came together to form the original IAPT service model. It was always intended that employment support would be integral part of IAPT.
However, there were real issues with that, with when in 2007 in the comprehensive spending review, DH was able to come up with the money for the for the therapists but unfortunately, DWP didn't get quite as much in the government settlement as they expected to get and were unable to fund the Employment Advisors that they had wished to do so.
So the investment in employment advice was left to local primary care trusts at the time and certainly the investment was patchy at best, and also over time from the period of sort 2008 nine when IAPT started
through to 2015 it was very clear that if you had a choice, and lots of IAPT services
I have services had to make choices about how they would invest their money. If they had more money than they expected, they were unlikely to invest in employment advisors and more likely to invest in therapists and conversely, if they had less money, they were unlikely to cut therapists and were more likely to cut ties with employment support providers.
There were also some structural changes in the NHS at that time when we moved away from having Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts to CCGs in around 2011/12 and what we found as a result of that is that certainly in the North West of England for example, there was a regional contract employing employment advisors through an organisation called Pathways to Work CIC, and with the demise of the Strategic Health Authorities, so did that particular contract go by the wayside.
So where we did have employment advisors, we had lost a number of those over the years for those attritional reasons.
So in 2015, when we did the IAPT Workforce Census, we found that some organisations and providers had employment advice, but the vast majority of providers did not have them available at all.
So, how the Work and Health Unit came into existence and they were looking to get something off
the ground quite quickly. Now I had worked with the DWP earlier and I was invited to come onboard.
So in 2015, in October I came across from NHS England to the DWP and started work on the Employment Advisers in IAPT initiative.
So, we have moved away now from the one to eight ratio and we now look at providing employment advisors more to reflect demand and there's two key assumptions we make when we do our allocations.
So for this year in 2021, for the first time we've been allocated on the basis of each employment
between 100 and 120 people a year, and also that the number of people who would expect employees to receive employment support to be equivalent to about 1/6 of the number of people who complete a course of treatment within the IAPT service.
The vision of the EAs makes it possible with the money we were spending a DWP and as I say we've invested over £50 million over the last three a few years in this since 2017, we have now around 350
Employment Advisors and Senior Employment Advisors working across the approximately 40% of
the NHS in IAPT services and we are in those services able to provide and offer of combined psychological treatment and employment support to keep people in work while they go through treatment in the remain field, to get people to get back to work who are off sick to return to work and also to support those who are looking for jobs to find work.
We've been undertaking an evaluation since we started in 2017, the evaluation was completed on the 28th of February 2019, and it's been difficult in some ways because of the inadequacy of the data, but we have we are looking to try and ensure that we can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that if you combine employment support and treatment and provide that to people with depression anxiety who have got work issues, that you can get better outcomes by having that combined offer than providing treatment alone and that’s certainly what we've been doing with our evaluation.
In this financial year, the NHS is committed through the five year forward view, to get 29,000 people with mental health issues to receive employment support, and we are picking up the vast majority of that. We were due to see 19,000 people this year. It could be the expectation would be larger than that because we believe that the IPS work that is going on in secondary care mental health services is unlikely to meet, its required target within this year, so we will be required, I think to pick up the slack. So we can move to the next one please.
Slide 10 – Employment Support Data Prior to EA in IAPT (18:00)
This is this is just a quick view around a data. So, what we’ve got to realise is that employment data was not mandatory and we're talking historically here, and they were very low levels of data collected and reported, partly because we had such a low number of Employment Advisors working in IAPT services.
Now obviously, as we've increased that by three fold now, the issues around the suitability of the IAPT data set to support good quality data collection for people who are receiving employment support was come much more to the fore.
The other thing you’ve got to realise is the initial target for employment support within IAPT was a very simple target of getting 25,000 people a year off sick pay and benefits. That target was consistently met through the early years of the program and therefore again, there was very little concentration made on the employment support data.
And that's the historic nature of where we are and why we are in a position where under version two we are making quite considerable changes to the IAPT set.
So, if we look at some of those historic issues, employment support was described as a therapy type, it clearly isn't therapy, it's a support intervention and it's completely different. And also for some reason, the employment support was described within the IAPT data set is being of either high or low intensity and again that is not the case with employment support, employment support is very varied, but I
wouldn't describe it as a high and low intensity and what services tended to do and quite correctly was actually it was more description of whether a client was receiving high intensity or low intensity
treatment at the same time as employment support, but it was an unnecessary field that we did
Also in the early days and right up until 2018, Employment Advisors were required to collect all the IAPT PROMs, so all the clinical measures that were required to be taken as mandatory fields. But fortunately in 2018 our regional clinical leads were informed of this, as some services had some skepticism about whether employment advisors correctly trying to do so, and it was no longer requirement from 2018 for Employment Advisors to collect those PROMs. I know that some services continue to do that, but I also know in those services, processes are in place and training is in place to ensure their Employment Advisors are aware of the risk factors and also a very clear about what to do if a client reports to them any of those risk factors around self-harm.
Some of the other unintended consequences of employment support being categorised as a therapy type is actually stops the Clock for waiting times and this obviously could in some services create an underestimation of the waiting times for psychological treatment, which as you know is something that the public and also the decision makers are very keen to get a handle on, so that was a bit of deception potentially going on there. And also if people received employment support only and didn't actually have any treatment, they could actually be seen as completing treatment and therefore could be a negative impact on recovery rates. Both of these things are things that obviously needed to change.
When we came into existence in 2015, I worked with the analysts at DWP to create version 1.4 of the Employment Advisors in IAPT data set, which was incorporated as the employment appointments table within version 1.5 or the IAPT data set. There were some small changes that we were able to make at that stage but obviously now we're in a completely new version we've been able to make some more substantial changes this year.
Another thing about the 25,000 people on sick pay and benefits, it was a gross measure, so we only measured those who have positive impacts, we did not measure those who had negative impacts, so those who were not on benefits at the start of treatment, but we're on benefits at the end of treatment were not actually counted, so it was a slightly misleading again about impact that we had, but as I say, we met the target and very little concentration was made on how we did that.
I think. I think that's my bit done now. Gavin is Linden around to do his bit?
Slide 11 – Changes for EAs in Version 2
Yes, I'm here Kevin.
Lyndon is going to take you through let's say the more detailed aspects of version 2 and specifically around how Employment Advisors, Senior Employment Advisers and clinicians will collect these particular items. So away you go Linden?
Thanks Kevin, so yeah, just to reemphasise, the slides that we're focusing on is really around what the changes are in the items that are collected and which items are going. All the sort of broader changes around how data is linked and submitted, that's all covered by NHS digital, they’re definitely the experts when it comes to that.
So some of this has already being covered, but some of the sort of big changes around what's now in the employment table in version 2 is that there's now a broader question around employment status, so previously some EAs were only collecting what was called the employment attendance data, so that's whether someone was employed and off sick, or whether they're employed and attending work and
under version two that's now gone, and there is a single employment status question, which is much broader, so it captures whether someone's unemployed, employed, inactive etc.
So a much broader range of categories, approximately eight and you can see those. I think this was actually a measure that was in 1.5, but it just wasn't in the employment adviser table. It used to be collected in the appointment table.
But there are some changes or new indicators which are actually very similar to things that you are all familiar with from version 1.5. So that's a single yes/no question around whether an individual is self-employed, and that's obviously asked to anyone who is employed, whether they're off sick, which replaces the question I just spoke about and also whether they’re in receipt of statutory, sick pay, so that's a new addition that wasn't in the employment adviser table before but has been collected in IAPT previously.
As Kevin also mentioned, there's been a sort change to sort of therapy types of what they used to be called. So now there's just a single activity type which is employment support, so this distinction between high intensity and low intensity employment support has completely gone. So there's a single code and a single way of recording all employment support activity, so that's quite a big change.
Some of the other bigger changes, and I think you'll be aware of these as Kevin presented them in a previous webinar, is that now there's additional actual outcome measures that we are recommending, or encouraging EAs to collect. One of these is the presenteeism questions, these are three questions and I won't read them out word for word, but they effectively measure whether the effect of ill health on your productivity in work.
So that's an area that's got an awful lot of interest, particularly among academics and government, because it relates to productivity, which was one of the biggest challenges before Covid hit us, and I know that there's been a working group that Kevin can probably fill you in on, who've been piloting some of these questions, highlighting some of the issues with them, and I think there will be teething issues, but it's important that we start to measure things for the people who are in work when they start
to receive employment support. Not just whether they're retained in work by the time they leave our services, but also if we can see a benefit on their productivity.
Another thing that we will be advising into version two, is not a new measure, it already exists in IAPT and it is already collected, but it's the work and Social Adjustment Scale, and we're considering an engagement with stakeholders to see whether we believe that EAs should also collect this measure in addition to therapists, so that would give us a longer term outcome of how is people's ability to work, how is that change due to the employment support they've received. But as I said, that's not a new measure,
that measure's already in the IAPT data set now, it's just something that we might now encourage now that the sites have been more established, we might start encouraging EAs to collect this if they don't
The only other thing that's quite a big change and that’s the last bullet point, and that's that previously we've always spoke about the pilot table and how pilot sites need to collect this data, but we're now we're now at a stage where we're encouraging all sites with an EA, even if they're not part of the official initiative yet, to start to collect and flow the data on employment status. It's really important and it obviously informs the clinical journey as well.
Slide 12 – Data items not carried over or unchanged from v1.5 (28:13)
So this is what stops, some of it’s a repetition, because obviously some of the stuff that stopped is because there's a new item that replaces it.
So, what’s stopped? As a me and Kevin have covered several times now, the therapy types are gone, and so has the low intensity high intensity item and that change is one of the reasons why employment support activity doesn't stop the treatment waiting time. It also might remove employment support appointments where PROMs are collected from contributing to recovery rates.
Another quite big change, and something which is going to have impacts on our IAPT going forward, is that the employment support type. So this is the field that captured whether you were providing employment support to help someone remaining work, returned to work or find work. That doesn't
feature in version two and has been removed.
So what that does mean practically, what's really important for us is that we have really accurate recording of people's economic status because that's how we will know what type of employment support and how many numbers are receiving each type of employment support. So obviously if you're unemployed at your first employment support session, it suggests you're probably receiving employment support to find work or to move towards work. So because this employment support type is gone, it makes it really crucial that the economic status of the individual is recorded and updated accurately.
The other big change for what's leaving at version two, is the last employment support indicator. So this was just a binary measure, which was whether the appointment was the last are employment support appointment intended to be given to the client. That's now gone and part of the reason for that was it was quite hard sometimes for EAs to complete this indicator if a client was to drop out or if a client was to go into work and just stops responding to calls. So what's going to happen in the version 2, is that a referral to employment support will be classed as closed in the data set if there's been no activity or no additional activity on that referral for two months. We have spoken to a few sites about whether we think that will work and we are going to keep it under review.
It's important to say, although there are some big changes, there are quite a lot of things that have only been minor tweaks to the data set and a lot of things that are staying the same, so that includes the weekly hours worked and all the benefit items, they will apart from a few slight tweaks in
Terminology, they’re all exactly the same.
The one thing we are considering is whether we reduce how often we ask you to collect some of these measures, because quite a lot of them will be quite stable and we’re obviously keen to keep burden to a minimum, especially if there's new measures that were asking you to collect like presenteeism.
The other things that are the same but important to really emphasize is that we are very reliant on the data, to demonstrate the demand for employment support, but going forward to support both local and national evaluation.
And the other thing that stayed the same, but I don't think all sites is necessarily being communicated or we were really aware of until the last few months is that it's really important that you record your employment support activity correctly. So, if any employment support takes place before a clients discharged, so before the discharge date, it's important that that appointment is recorded as a treatment appointment in the data set.
For any activity that occurs after they've left therapy, so after their discharge dates been entered, that needs to be recorded as a follow up appointment and the problem is if it's not done it that way, when the data flows to NHS digital, if it's not a follow up appointment and it occurs after discharge, it suddenly gets emitted. So I know for some of the sites where they do a lot of activity after therapy, that's a really key issue for us.
Slide 13 – What next? (32:05)
So just in terms of a few next steps to support the rollout of version two specifically for Employment Advisors, me and Kevin and a few others will be working on a data Handbook, so that's currently in draft form and that goes into a bit more guidance on the new items and specifically how and when we would like them to be collected. And that's because the NHS Digital documentation explains a lot about the data, but it's not up to NHS Digital to advise when measures should be collected in most cases.
We're quite keen to make sure this Handbook isn't rushed in that it's right, so we're making sure it's going through quite a long process of being signed off, so we will be engaging with an NHS Digital to check it doesn't contradict any of their documentation.
We’ll also be working with IAPTUS and PCMIS to make sure they're cited and clear about what's in there and what we expect you guys to collect going forward and we’ll also obviously come out to the direct people who are entering the data and dealing with clients every day to see whether the changes we propose a reasonable and flag any concerns.
And I guess the key point, I've said this a lot that is reemphasising the last bullet, is just we’re keen to make sure that these changes don't add substantial burden, either to the people delivering the service, you on the frontline and obviously to the patient.
Slide 14 - Any questions (33:28)
So just to say that if you have any questions you can contact either Kevin or I and we can help you through it. Hopefully the Data Handbook and the comments we get on that will hopefully address a lot of your concerns as well.
Sorry Linden, it's Chris Jones at PCMIS. Can I just interrupt you there and just make something clear please? You commented about recording the follow-up Employment Adviser appointments after the IAPT referral had closed and they needed to be recorded as full appointments. I think that's correct for IAPTUS services but for PCMIS that's not correct. Employment Advisors can still record those appointments as treatment Contacts as they would if that particular client still had an active IAPT referral. We have written the data extract reports to record those appointments to follow up appointments when they're doing their data submissions, but they should still continue to record the appointments correctly through the front end of the system.
Thanks, Chris, so that's the sort of thing that's going to be in the data Handbook. I think the crucial thing that we answer a lot of questions about, obviously you guys work with a patient administration system like IAPTUS or PCMIS at the front end and NHS Digital extracts data from those systems, so what you put in almost gets transformed before it’s submitted and different providers have different ways of decoding and transforming the data. So that issue around follow up, It seems obviously with PCMIS, they've helpfully managed to build into that system that it is recorded not as a follow up. It still goes in to NHS Digital, but obviously if you've got a different provider who's providing your software, that's not necessarily the case. So that's exactly the sort of nuances that we're trying to get to the bottom of and produce quite clear guidance so you know that with the system you're working with, how you should be recording these appointments going forward, but thanks for the clarity.
Slide 15 – What has stayed the same? (36:24)
Thanks Kevin and Lyndon for going through the detail about why we're doing this and why it's important.
I think Lyndon touched on this, around what’s stayed the same. So you can see there the specific data items, what they were called in the version 1.5 pilot and what they are called in version two. So those data items that are exactly the same and we should be collecting the same information in there.
Slide 16 – What has changed? 1 (37.03)
Here you can see the following data items that have had a minor rewording, this is to make sure it conforms to the Data Dictionary. Essentially is capturing the same information, it’s just the name was changed, so I don't think there's anything too unusual there.
Slide 17 – What has changed? 2 (37:23)
And I think Lyndon already touched on this as well, the deletion of these two items: The employment support type and the last employment support employment indicator.
Those have been removed, so they were collected in the version 1.5 pilot, but they won't be collected anymore in version 2.
And then the addition of this new data item, the self-employed indicator.
Lyndon also mentioned about questions 7-9 of the productivity cost questionnaire which has been added as well.
Slide 18 – What has changed? 3 (38:00)
We're not going into this slide in much detail but back on the overall data model you may have seen at the far-right hand side it wasn't directly connected to anything. There is a qualification table for the Care Personnel now, and IAPT version two has these two new types of qualification – 30 and 31.
Now I’ll let Lyndon or Kevin jump in here said what we want you to start doing this straight away from the beginning of version 2, but I don't think from our discussion previously we were expecting that or the IAPT handbook will make that clear when it's published. Is that right?
OK, so people will be aware that we did run some national training, and in fact we're still tying up loose ends with Liverpool John more University, and we have got Skills for Justice to accredit that training. So, both an SEA module and an EA module.
If we get the money to roll this out to 100% of IAPT services, which we are hopeful of, then the records of those who passed those courses will be will be passed onto HEE and you will be fully accredited by Skills for Justice.
But until such time as we get that decision to roll out EAs in IAPT, we’ll be holding back on this. So, yes, there is a curriculum in which we are continuing to develop for Employment Advisors. And yes, there is a curriculum from Senior Employment Advisors, but at present we are not going to be accrediting people long-term.
You will receive a certificate from John Moores University, does it? Hopefully most people have received those already, but there there's no that we're not accrediting this as accredited training until such a time as there is some surety about the future of the programme.
So just, on that then, if or when that does eventually get accredited, version two has that capability to submit that information so there won't be a need to create a new version of the IAPT data set to allow that information to flow, but practically, until their qualifications are accredited, obviously will advise you want some property start flowing that information.
The therapy type has been mentioned quite a bit previously, so obviously it's not listed as therapy type anymore and is no longer duplicated under low and high intensity, it’s a self-contained employment support heading that you can submit instead.
Slide 19 – What has changed? 4 (41:06)
And then this is just going back to the relational data model that we touched on earlier. This may look slightly different to what the full data model looks like and the order they appear, but you can see that the employment status table which we’ve been through, it connects directly to the patient table now and it's linked via their local patient identifier and you can see the data items. The bold one is one that has to be submitted no matter what, and the other data items are ones that we expect to be submitted if that information has been captured a locally.
So the purpose of doing this is to give us a standardised employment record for a patient across national data sets, so there is a similar employment status table in the Mental Health Service data set and soon the Community Service data set. It doesn't go into the same detail as the IAPT employment status does, but it is making sure that it does align with those data items where they are collected. It doesn't change how we collect it locally, it's just how we like to extract and submit for secondary uses purposes to the IAPT data set.
Slide 20 – What to submit (42:24)
I think we touched on burden avert submission, trying to keep that to a minimum. So I put this slide together, obviously with the caveat of what we talked about earlier around whether we do indeed go live with July 2020 data. So if we're working to that timetable, then June 2020 would be the last reporting period that the IAPT version 1.5 pilot data is submitted by the pilot sites and that would still go to the Bureau Services Portal like it does at the moment.
The July 2020 data, what we're suggesting here is that it would be very useful to have a baseline, so we would say that everybody submits to the full employment status table for any open referrals in that first submission when IAPT version two goes live, that will give us the baseline so that we know what the status is with that open referral at the time. Then for the subsequent reporting periods, what we're saying there is, if you got a new patient that's been referred to you for the first time, again, collect the employment status and submit that.
Patients where you didn't catch that information in a previous period but now we've discovered that information, we’d obviously would be interested in that, and also any of the data items where information has changed since the previous submission, we would want you to do that.
But just on the bottom point, if there's absolutely no change at all, you just submit exactly the same information is what you did in the previous month. There’s not being any new question asked about anything, then we wouldn't expect to resubmit the exact same information month after month after month.
Slide 21 – Keep in touch (44:08)
And I think that takes us to the Q&A. So I know there's been quite a few questions on in the chat, so Emma have you been keeping track of where the first one is.
Yeah, thank you, so the first one, should we record these items if we don't have Employment Advisors within our IAPT service, i.e. should therapists be asking all questions, presenteeism, hours worked, etc. at each care contact? Or is this just for Employment Advisors?
I can take that, I guess the short answer is that each site has complete autonomy in what they collect. We would strongly encourage you and we would love it if every site collected all these measures, if it was therapy only or if they received employment support. You are able to supply them if that's what you want to do, but it's completely up to sites to decide what they do and do not support and they have to manage patient burden practitioner burden against the benefits of submitting the data.
We've done these slides predominantly for EAs and that's predominantly for sites which were involved in the pilot. I think EAs can collect these measures and as a minimum of everyone who receives employment support, is getting their presenteeism outcomes recorded, that's a really great outcome for us.
We would love it if there were also people who received therapy only, if you had those outcomes to allow comparison evaluation, but it's completely up to each site to decide, actually what are our rules around what we're collecting, from who and when.
But in our data Handbook we will recommend, we will put out what we would ideally like, but the IAPT says always been an output data set that draws from the local systems, you can collect additional things in your local systems and you can recall things differently, it's completely up to you really.
But as I said, the Data Handbook will say what we would ideally like.
We do know from talking to some of the people who have been testing presenteeism for quite a while and we know that some sites are getting the clinicians, for those who don't receive employment support to collect it irrespective of whether person is receiving employment support or not, so that's presenteeism questions. And obviously it will help us greatly if we get an understanding of what the impact of employment support is on presenteeism, so we would need some people who are not receiving employment support to be filling in those questionnaires and that would be very helpful to us in terms of
our future evaluation.
But as Linden says, these are not mandatory field so people can make a choice, but certainly for those who receiving Employment Advisors and where we're paying for those Employed Advisors, we do expect you to collect the presenteeism questions, certainly from those who receive employment support and ideally from everybody within your service who is in work and working.
Remember presenteeism questions only need to be asked those people who are in work and working.
Lovely thank you. A comment from Sonny, closing referrals after two months with the increase predicted in IAPT referrals, means an increase in EA referrals and it’s possible some service will have waiting times and this would paint a false picture of those waiting for employment support.
Yeah, OK. This is a rule that is developed by NHS digital by the team that publishes the monthly reports that they upload on IAPT activity. So they need to find a way to decide when a referral is dormant, i.e. closed. We used to have an indicator that made that very obvious, but it did have issues and now that's gone they're trying to think of a way of how can they identify in their back end data whenever a referral’s closed.
The last time we spoke to them, it was their suggestion that they use a two month rule and we did check it with about six or Seven sites - although this was sort of pre-Covid. I think the important thing to stress here is whatever the rule in NHS digital use and what's reported out the back end, in the front end of your systems, PCMIS or IAPTUS or whoever, you can obviously leave a referral In that case open, It just means that in the back end when NHS Digital report on it, it potentially will be reported as a closed referral.
But we have flagged some of these concerns to NHS Digital, both because we don't want a case where you potentially have one person who has an appointment every three months for two years classed as six different referrals. So happy for you to send over your concerns and we can flag it to them and NHS Digital will have to decide some rule for when they think a case is closed.
They did say that at the moment they're going for two months, but they would keep it under review and see how it performs, and it might be the after it's been running for a few months that they decide that two months is far too short and they extend it, but there's pros and cons with whatever time span you choose really.
All I'd say on this is that operationally we are very clear in EAs in IAPT, that if someone is not actively receiving employment support, you discharge them. So we don't think there should be a need to build up waiting lists on the basis that you're waiting for someone to get back to you or if you’re ringing them once a month to check if they've got a job, that is not active employment support. So, people are not actively receiving employment support, they should be discharged from employment support. Yes, I operationally I don't think it should make a great deal of difference.
Question from Simon. Clients can be in service longer than two months, if a client drops out then re engages, will this count as two EA referrals?
Our understanding is yes. I think it was Dorset that we spoke with and they raised this question and I believe it would count as two different episodes, so two different referrals of people affectively receiving employment support. But in the actual data set you have the patient identified, so it would link to show as two episodes for the same person. So potentially yes.
I think a lot of the concerns about the two month wait, what I'd advise, is that you email us, our details on the slides before. As I said this isn't a rule that we've developed, we haven't said that two months seems right, it's NHS Digital that need a way to now decide when employment support is finished and that is what they have proposed.
When we spoke to about 7 or 8 services, all but one thought that actually that wouldn't cause an issue, but potentially Covid’s made that worse, so if you have those concerns, email them and reflect them to us and we can pass them onto an NHS digital.
But I think it's quite important, say, the team that me and Kevin work on, we don't set the rules. We don't really set the terms or what's included in the updated set. We obviously give an input, but it's fundamentally not something we own.
Will you be liaising with trusts that don't use IAPTUS and PCMIS? In terms of us we certainly will. We’re aware that the universe is broader than IAPTUS and PCMIS, it’s sometimes difficult to work out who we need to contact at certain providers. But yeah, we’re keen to work with any system provider to make sure that data is now being recorded consistently, regardless of your system provider.
Yeah, and certainly any of the trusts that are using Care Notes or Paris or any other system who want to contact us directly with any concerns, we can pass those onto NHS Digital as well.
Question from Alison, I didn't think that any activity was accepted after referral End date was submitted. Gavin, that might be one for you.
It might, but I don't think I know the answer off the top of my head so I might have to look into that.
Hi it’s Aaron here, we do accept follow-up appointments and patient experience questionnaires after the referral’s ended. So if a referral ends in April, but there's a follow up in May or it is an experienced measure completed in May. Then we will accept the data. Even other referral ended in the previous reporting period.
Yeah, we’re very clear in the EA in IAPT service model that employment support continues beyond discharge and my understanding is that if you designate those appointments that happened after discharge as follow-up appointments, they will continue to be to be counted.
What I would like to stress is that does very really depend on who your system provider is, which is why were quite keen to engage with them on the Handbook. It's a very complex when you have loads of different systems being used to collect patient data or flowing NHS, Digital or configured in slightly different ways or with slight variants of names for different data items, it is quite difficult to produce standard guidance that applies to every single situation, but we're doing our best and hopefully version two will be a smoother launch them 1.5.
A couple of people have asked about the handbook and when is it expected to be published?
We’ve sort of going through and go started engagement within NHS digital now, once they are happy with the content it will go to the patient administration systems - PCMIS, IAPTUS, Carenotes. And then after that it will be circulated to a selection of EAs and SEAs.
I think it will definitely be ready before it goes live. There's obviously discussions about when that exactly will be, but we're more keen to make sure that when this whole programme was set up that Kevin outlined, it was quite quick, there was an awful lot of legwork to do and we were very busy recruiting, I think at times you know we had to produce guidance with as best as we could in the short time span, where we're keen now to make sure that it really is accurate and completely full proof rather than rush it out.
We've also formed, as part of the National SEA Forum, a Data Working Group and those individuals on that group will be reviewing the data handbook before it's published to make sure that those who are collecting and reporting in the field have a good understanding of how it will work and we’ll be able to input their important information and skills into that.
Next question from Rose. How would we submit data in a scenario where a person has a part-time job and is also self-employed / running a small business?
Yeah, these are the tricky ones because the data set when it flows effectively only allows you to have to count one job. So the advice would be to find out what is their primary job, are they self-employed and have a part-time job on the side? Or is the part-time job their main job and they spend 4 hours self-employed doing some casual work or something, so I guess it's one of those where you use your judgment try and be as consistent as possible.
Which category do you feel they predominantly reside in? Sadly with the data set that has to be consistent across such a heterogeneous range of people, it has to necessarily be simplified and won't allow you to record details for a number of jobs. But again, we have already got that in the Handbook and our advice is what is the primary job, how would you primarily classify that individual at the point of employment when you collect the data.
Next question, employment support suitability indicator, please can the rationale/purpose of this be of this question be explained.
Definitely. This is going to go into the Handbook because it's one of the ones from 1.5 where we've seen a lot of variation between sites, and I'm not sure particular with its name, it's particularly clear what it does capture. Some sites, use it to capture people who have been offered employment support, in some sites it’s collected only by the therapist to determine who is suitable to receive employment support. So that's one of the key things were consulting on, is how should that indicator be filled out and a version 2, who should fill it out and how often should it be updated.
I think the key thing that Kevin will emphasise is that we expect employment support should be offered through our patient’s journey, but yeah, it's one of the areas that we did notice from 1.5 and we had a lot of feedback that it wasn't particularly clear how that should be used, so we're really going out to sites to try and work out what's the best way to use that indicator to try and get it completed consistently across sites going forward.
Lyndon’s right there in terms of, we require employment support to be offered throughout treatment, not just at the assessment and then never again, so it's a regular question will be asked by therapists. But also, we're clear that the only person who can deem themselves suitable for employment support is the client, so it's just a matter of making sure that the clinician does record the fact the person says they they would like employment support and most importantly, actually inform the Senior Employment Advisors Employment Advisors that that person does require support.
So we've got some cases recently where it's clear that people are completing the ‘deemed suitable’ part of the data set, and that's not being communicated onto Employment Advisors.
If we have all our clinician details flowing via the care qualification table, but the employment advisors flow is blank, could this possibly fail the submission or fail the table?
I don't think it would be an issue, the 902 Care Personnel table is a separate table so it would be only the role of data that you were trying to submit that would be rejected, but if it's all blank and it wouldn't be anything there. So any other Care Personnel that has their full details contained that would go through.
OK, next question - slightly concerning when commissioners use these reports from NHSD to benchmark and for other analysis.
I think that was in relation to the thing around the two month cut off right and as we said, send us your concerns. With their nature NHS Digital publications are there for media use for commissioners to use for anyone to use, so it's important they’re right. I think the point I'll say is, there are some things that need sorting under version 2, but currently under version 1.5, if you compare the total number of employment support referrals to what we called it in the MI, it's less than half, so we agree that it's important that NHS Digital data is important to inform commissioning decisions, because me and Kevin have to try and justify continued funding of the programme and expansion, on the basis of a data set.
But that’s because of the way 1.5 was built with the a pilot being added on and the various linking requirements that went on in the background sadly meant that a lot of data got lost which created real problems so send us your concerns about the two month cut off and we're very keen that in the future
to really work hard with as many people as possible involved in the data to make sure the NHS Digital data is as accurate as possible.
Next question. Just to clarify, how frequently do the presenteeism questions need to be asked if someone is employed but off sick from work? Do presenteeism questions need to be asked?
Firstly, if someone is off sick from work, they're not working and we cannot measure their productivity, so it's only for people who are in work and working that we asked presenteeism questions.
How often they should be asked? Since about January, services have been testing this and we have a group which is coming together to look at the experience of those services. The questionnaire itself talks about in the last four weeks, so that's an indication, possibly how often we should answer it.
Some services are asking that every session, others are asking it at the start, the middle and the end summer asking it at the start. After four weeks and the end of every four weeks on the end, so we are we are looking at how that is best done and we will obviously produce some guidance once we have tested more thoroughly.
Thank you, I think we're at the end of the questions. There's been a question about the slides and they will definitely be uploaded to our IAPT web page and we will be sending out a link to that shortly and we’ll probably update the slides with any extra information and guidance from the questions that were asked today.
Gavin, do you have anything to add it all?
Yeah, I realised we’ve overrun, so thank you for everybody for staying on the line and we can probably draw the session to a close. Thank you, Kevin and Lynden and Andrew for joining the call as well and Emma for fielding all the questions, we will try and go through the meeting chat and make sure if there's anything not answered, but if you don’t feel like your question has been answered, you can see the NHS Digital Enquiries e-mail address and we can pick that up and Kevin and Lyndon mentioned their email addresses this in the middle of the slide deck, which we will send it out later. So Kevin, Lyndon, anything else before we draw to a close?
Just one thing for me, I am aware of some people who struggle to join this call today, we did ask is whether the recording will be made available. Just wondering if that's possible and if not, certainly we know that the presentation and also a Q&AI will be available after this meeting and we will ensure that is distributed to all Senior Employment Advisors and also all our data. Eat.
Yeah, we can look into that, but definitely the presentation slides will be made available in the Q&A stuff.
Alright, well I think that's everything so thank you everybody.
I hope you found that useful and like I said, you probably will be receiving some kind of communication over the next few days around whether it is indeed being delayed or, we are still going live in July 2020. OK, alright thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you very much for hosting this. Thank you.
Collecting information about people in contact with adult psychological therapy services in England.
We currently maintain two pilot data collections for IAPT services, which are submitted alongside the core IAPT Data Set by those services involved in the pilots.
The IAPT Data Set provides a comprehensive national picture of the use of IAPT services in England.
The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Data Set collects information about adults in contact with psychological therapy services.
Why and how we process your data in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) collection, and your rights.