National Diabetes Inpatient Audit (NaDIA) - 2018

The information available from this webpage comes from the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit. The National Diabetes Inpatient Audit is a snapshot audit of diabetes inpatient care. During September and October 2018, hospitals across England and Wales collected data on the characteristics of the hospital, including participation, staffing levels and care improvement initiatives. 2018 was a designated NaDIA Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) year. To reduce the burden on QIC participants, the NaDIA 2018 collection undertook the Hospital Characteristics (HC) survey only. # Making clinical audit data transparent In his transparency and open data letter to Cabinet Ministers on 7 July 2011, the Prime Minister made a commitment to make clinical audit data available from the national audits within the National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcomes Programme. # What information is being made available? National Diabetes Inpatient Audit data for 2018 is available at hospital site level for: * Audit participation * Measures of staffing levels and care improvement initiatives. These data do not list individual patient information nor do they contain any patient identifiable data. # Using and interpreting the data Data from the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit should not be looked at in isolation when assessing standards of care. # Accessing the data The data are being made available on the data.gov website. Each year a data file from the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit will be made available in CSV format. Hospitals are identified by name and their national code. # What does the data cover? The audit looks at the following areas: * Participation in the audit * Inpatient staffing levels * Take-up of care improvement initiatives # What period does the data cover? This report covers hospital characteristics during September and October 2018. The audit report was published on 9 May 2019. Historic data is available for previous audit years (2010-2013, 2015-2017) where survey questions were comparable.