Make the text size

Text Size:

Current Size: 100%

IAPT Annual Report Summary - 2015/2016

NHS England

In our April members magazine, Compulsive Reading we published our summary of the 'Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC)' annual report of IAPT data for the year 2014/15. In our summary we reported that the data showed big differences in recovery rates for people seeking treatment for OCD with local IAPT services across England.

For those that don’t know what IAPT is, the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies initiative was introduced across England to improve access to psychological therapies, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Each region has its own local IAPT service commissioned by local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) and all with their own local name (i.e. Let’s Talk, Healthy Minds, Talk Liverpool).

The ‘Psychological Therapies Annual Report on the use of IAPT services’ is published annually and presents a picture of activity in IAPT services and of the people that used them. The report published both national data and local CCG data broken down to reports on recovery data per condition, including OCD. Naturally we reviewed the data from an OCD perspective and found the following:

  • People with OCD wait longer to access treatment than most other conditions.
  • People with OCD get more sessions of CBT than patients with other conditions.
  • People with OCD are still being offered treatments not recommended by NICE.
  • There remains a vast difference across different IAPT/CCG’s in the way OCD is treated.

We also reported on the reported on the recovery rates specifically for OCD with Newbury and District reporting the best recovery rate of 88.2% compared to East Surrey reporting a recovery rate for OCD patients of just 24%! Of course, it is imperative to review the results with caution because there are many variables to take into consideration, such as size of trust and number of OCD patients with the 'official' reported recovery rates. It's also worth reporting that a significant number of CCGs failed to report any data at all for OCD recovery rates.

Last week NHS Digital (the new name for the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC)l) published the new and their fourth annual report of IAPT data for the 2015/16 period. We will once again review it and summarise on it in our next OCD-UK members magazine and on this website, however for those interested in stats, here is the top line from the report ( for all conditions treated, not just OCD):

  • 1,399,088 new referrals were received to IAPT services in the year.
  • 953,522 referrals entered treatment in the year.
  • 1,299,525 referrals ended (for any reason) in the year.
  • 490,395 referrals finished a course of treatment in the year having started treatment.
  • 226,850 (46.3%) moved to recovery.
  • Of the 537,131 referrals that finished a course of treatment within the year, 81.3% waited less than 6 weeks and 96.2% waited less than 18 weeks to enter treatment.
  • Number of referrals finishing a course of treatment in the year with OCD and showing reliable improvement 5,876 (64.3%) but 561 (6.1%) are reported to have deteriorated.
  • NHS Kernow CCG again fared badly and this year recorded the lowest recovery rate for OCD at 27.7% (from 50 patients). Last year's lowest was East Surrey who this year recorded far better at 46.8% from 20 patients.
  • The best recorded recovery rate for OCD was NHS North Kirklees CCG with 77.8% (from 15 patients). Last year it was Newbury and District at (88.2%) who this year recorded 68.8% from 10 patients.
  • 20 CCGs failed to supply data on their recovery rates for OCD.
  • Our full review and summary specific to OCD will be published in the next edition of Compulsive Reading.

Copyright © 2004-2017 OCD-UK.
Charity Registration Number: 1103210
OCD-UK, Marble Hall (Office 5), 80 Nightingale Road, Derby DE24 8BF

OCD-UK is a non-profit making charity and not associated with any other organisation. Medical information is provided for education/information purposes only, you should obtain further advice from your doctor. Any links to external websites have been carefully selected, however we are not responsible for the content of these third party websites.