Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems.

BACKGROUND: There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework. METHODS: To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views. RESULTS: The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff. CONCLUSIONS: The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

Anticipatory care planning and integration: a primary care pilot study aimed at reducing unplanned hospitalisation.

BACKGROUND: Anticipatory care for older patients who are frail involves both case identification and proactive intervention to reduce hospitalisation. AIM: To identify a population who were at risk of admission to hospital and to provide an anticipatory care plan (ACP) for them and to ascertain whether using primary and secondary care data to identify this population and then applying an ACP can help to reduce hospital admission rates. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of a service intervention in a general practice and a primary care team in Scotland. METHOD: The ACP sets out patients' wishes in the event of a sudden deterioration in health. If admitted, a proactive approach was taken to transfer and discharge patients into the community. Cohorts were selected using the Nairn Case Finder, which matched patients in two practices for age, sex, multiple morbidity indexes, and secondary care outpatient and inpatient activity; 96 patients in each practice were studied for admission rate, occupied bed days and survival. RESULTS: Survivors from the ACP cohort (n = 80) had 510 fewer days in hospital than in the 12 months pre-intervention: a significant reduction of 52.0% (P = 0.020). There were 37 fewer admissions of the survivors from that cohort post-intervention than in the preceding 12 months, with a significant reduction of 42.5% (P = 0.002). Mortality rates in the two cohorts were similar, but the number of patients who died in hospital and the hospital bed days used in the last 3 months of life were significantly lower for the decedents with an ACP than for the controls who had died (P = 0.007 and P = 0.045 respectively). CONCLUSION: This approach produced statistically significant reductions in unplanned hospitalisation for a cohort of patients with multiple morbidities. It demonstrates the potential for providing better care for patients as well as better value for health and social care services. It is of particular benefit in managing end-of-life care.