Temporal structures that determine consistency and quality of care: a case study in hyperacute stroke services.

BACKGROUND: Temporal structuring is determined by practices and social norms and affects the quality and timing of care. In this case study of hyperacute stroke wards which provide initial stroke investigation, treatment and care, we explored temporal structuring patterns to explain how these may affect quality of care. METHODS: This paper presents a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with hyperacute stroke staff (n=76), non-participant observations (n=41, ~102 hours) and documentary analysis of the relevant service standards guidance. We used an inductive coding process to generate thematic findings around the concept of temporal structuring, with graphically illustrated examples. RESULTS: Five temporal structures influence what-happens-when: (1) clinical priorities and quality assurance metrics motivate rapid activity for the initial life-prolonging assessments and interventions; (2) static features of ward organisation such as rotas and ward rounds impact consistency of care, determining timing and quality of care for patients; (3) some services experimented with staff rotas to try to meet peaks in demand, sometimes unsuccessfully; (4) implicit social norms or heuristics about perceived necessity affected staff motivation to make changes or improvements to consistency of care, particularly around weekend work; and (5) after-effects such as bottlenecks or backlogs affect quality of care, which are hard to measure effectively to drive service improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Patients need temporally consistent high quality of care. Temporal consistency stems from the design of services, including staffing, targets and patient pathway design as well as cultural attitudes to working patterns. Improvements to consistency of care will be limited without changes to structures such as rotas and ward rounds, but also social norms around weekend work for certain professional groups.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE). METHODS: Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

The economic costs of child maltreatment in UK.

Child maltreatment is a major public health problem with significant consequences for individual victims and for society. In this paper, we quantify for the first time the economic costs of fatal and nonfatal child maltreatment in the UK in relation to several short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes ranging from physical and mental health problems to labor market outcomes and welfare use. We combine novel regression analysis of rich data from the National Child Development Study and the English Longitudinal Study of Aging with secondary evidence to produce an incidence-based estimate of the lifetime costs of child maltreatment from a societal perspective. The discounted average lifetime incidence cost of nonfatal child maltreatment by a primary caregiver is estimated at £89,390 (95% uncertainty interval £44,896 to £145,508); the largest contributors to this are costs from social care, short-term health, and long-term labor market outcomes. The discounted lifetime cost per death from child maltreatment is estimated at £940,758, comprising health care and lost productivity costs. Our estimates provide the first comprehensive benchmark to quantify the costs of child maltreatment in the UK and the benefits of interventions aimed at reducing or preventing it.

Operational analysis of school-based delivery models to vaccinate children against influenza.

Large-scale immunisation programmes against seasonal influenza are characterised by logistical challenges related to the need for vaccinating large cohorts of people in a short amount of time. Careful operational planning of resources is essential for a successful implementation of such programmes. We focused on the process of child vaccination in schools and analysed the staffing and workflow aspects of a school-aged children vaccination programme in England. Our objectives were to document vaccination processes and analyse times and costs associated with different models deployed across England. We collected data through direct non-participatory observations. Statistical data analysis enabled us to identify potential factors influencing vaccine delivery time and informed the development of a tool to simulate vaccination sessions. Using this tool, we carried out scenario analyses and explored trade-offs between session times and costs in different settings. Our work ultimately supported the local implementation of school-based vaccination.

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Implementing major system change in specialist cancer surgery: The role of provider networks.

OBJECTIVE: Major system change (MSC) has multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals and involves implementing change across a number of organizations. This study sought to develop new understanding of how the role that networks can play in implementing MSC, using the case of centralization of specialist cancer surgery in London, UK. METHODS: The study was based on a framework drawn from literature on networks and MSC. We analysed 100 documents, conducted 134 h of observations during relevant meetings and 81 interviews with stakeholders involved in the centralization. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: MSC in specialist cancer services was a contested process, which required constancy in network leadership over several years, and its horizontal and vertical distribution across the network. A core central team composed of network leaders, managers and clinical/manager hybrid roles was tasked with implementing the changes. This team developed different forms of engagement with provider organizations and other stakeholders. Some actors across the network, including clinicians and patients, questioned the rationale for the changes, the clinical evidence used to support the case for change, and the ways in which the changes were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new understanding of MSC by discussing the strategies used by a provider network to facilitate complex changes in a health care context in the absence of a system-wide authority.

Variation in quality of acute stroke care by day and time of admission: prospective cohort study of weekday and weekend centralised hyperacute stroke unit care and non-centralised services.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate variations in quality of acute stroke care and outcomes by day and time of admission in London hyperacute stroke units compared with the rest of England. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using anonymised patient-level data from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. SETTING: Acute stroke services in London hyperacute stroke units and the rest of England. PARTICIPANTS: 68 239 patients with a primary diagnosis of stroke admitted between January and December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Hub-and-spoke model for care of suspected acute stroke patients in London with performance standards designed to deliver uniform access to high-quality hyperacute stroke unit care across the week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 16 indicators of quality of acute stroke care, mortality at 3 days after admission to the hospital, disability at the end of the inpatient spell, length of stay. RESULTS: There was no variation in quality of care by day and time of admission to the hospital across the week in terms of stroke nursing assessment, brain scanning and thrombolysis in London hyperacute stroke units, nor was there variation in 3-day mortality or disability at hospital discharge (all p values>0.05). Other quality of care measures significantly varied by day and time of admission across the week in London (all p values<0.01). In the rest of England there was variation in all measures by day and time of admission across the week (all p values<0.01), except for mortality at 3 days (p value>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The London hyperacute stroke unit model achieved performance standards for 'front door' stroke care across the week. The same benefits were not achieved by other models of care in the rest of England. There was no weekend effect for mortality in London or the rest of the England. Other aspects of care were not constant across the week in London hyperacute stroke units, indicating some performance standards were perceived to be more important than others.

What does it take to provide clinical interventions with temporal consistency? A qualitative study of London hyperacute stroke units.

OBJECTIVES: Seven-day working in hospitals is a current priority of international health research and policy. Previous research has shown variability in delivering evidence-based clinical interventions across different times of day and week. We aimed to identify factors influencing such variations in London hyperacute stroke units (HASUs). DESIGN: Interview and observation study to explain patterns of variation in delivery and outcomes of care described in a quantitative partner paper (Melnychuk et al). SETTING: Eight HASUs in London. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed HASU staff (n=76), including doctors, nurses, therapists and administrators. We also conducted non-participant observations of delivery of care at different times of the day and week (n=45; ~102 hours). We analysed the data for thematic content relating to the ability of staff to provide evidence-based interventions consistently at different times of the day and week. RESULTS: Staff were able to deliver 'front door' interventions consistently by taking on additional responsibilities out of hours (eg, deciding eligibility for thrombolysis); creating continuities between day and night (through, eg, governance processes and staggering rotas); building trusting relationships with, eg, Radiology and Emergency Departments and staff prioritisation of 'front door' interventions. Variations by time of day resulted from reduced staffing in HASUs and elsewhere in hospitals in the evenings and at the weekend. Variations by day of week (eg, weekend effect) resulted from lack of therapy input and difficulties repatriating patients at weekends, and associated increases in pressure on Fridays and Mondays. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based service standards can facilitate 7-day working in acute stroke services. Standards should ensure that the capacity and capabilities required for 'front door' interventions are available 24/7, while other services, for example, therapies are available every day of the week. The impact of standards is influenced by interdependencies between HASUs, other hospital services and social services.

The effect of a change in co-payment on prescription drug demand in a National Health System: The case of 15 drug families by price elasticity of demand.

OBJECTIVES: To test the heterogeneity of the effect of a change in pharmaceutical cost-sharing by therapeutic groups in a Spanish region. METHODS: Data: random sample (provided by the Canary Islands Health Service) of 40,471 people covered by the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) in the Canary Islands. The database includes individualised monthly-dispensed medications (prescribed by the SNHS) from one year before (August 2011) to one year after (June 2013) the Royal Decree Law 16/2012 (RDL 16/2012). Sample: two intervention groups (low-income pensioners and middle-income working population) and one control group (low-income working population). Empirical model: quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design to study the change in consumption (measured in number of monthly Defined Daily Dose (DDDs) per individual) among 13 therapeutic groups. The policy break indicator (three-level categorical variable) tested the existence of stockpiling between the reform's announcement and its implementation. We ran 16 linear regression models (general, by therapeutic groups and by comorbidities) that considered whether the exclusion of some drugs from public provision impacted on consumption more than the co-payment increase. RESULTS: General: Reduction (-13.04) in consumption after the reform's implementation, which was fully compensated by a previous increase (16.60 i.e., stockpiling) among low-income pensioners. The middle-income working population maintained its trend of increasing consumption. Therapeutic groups: Reductions in consumption after the reform's implementation among low-income pensioners in 7 of the 13 groups, which were fully compensated for by a previous increase (i.e., stockpiling) in 4 groups and partially compensated for in the remaining 3. The analysis without the excluded medicines provided fewer negative coefficients. Comorbidities: Reduction in consumption that was only slightly compensated for by a previous increase (i.e., stockpiling). CONCLUSIONS: The negative impact of cost-sharing produced, among low-income pensioners, a risk of loss of adherence to treatments, which could deteriorate the health status of individuals, especially among pensioners within the most inelastic therapeutic groups (associated with chronic diseases) and patients with comorbidities (also, associated with chronic diseases). Notwithstanding the above, this risk was more related to the exclusion of some drugs from provision than to the cost-sharing increase.

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n = 186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. RESULTS: We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS: This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services.

The cost of mental and physical health disability in childhood and adolescence to families in the UK: findings from a repeated cross-sectional survey using propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVE: In the UK, families of disabled children are entitled to receive disability benefits to help meet costs associated with caring for their child. Evidence of actual costs incurred is scant, especially for mental health disability. In this study, we aimed to quantify the cost of mental and physical health disability in childhood and adolescence to families in the UK using the concept of compensating variation (CV). DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional survey. SETTING: The UK general population PARTICIPANTS: 85 212 children drawn from 8 waves of the Family Resources Survey. OUTCOMES: Using propensity score matching we matched families with a disabled child to similar families without a disabled child and calculated the extra income the former require to achieve the same living standards as the latter, that is, their CV. We calculated the additional costs specifically associated with several definitions of mental health and physical health disability. RESULTS: Families of a child with any mental health disability, regardless of the presence of physical health comorbidity, needed an additional £49.31 (95% CI: 21.95 to 76.67) and, for more severe disabilities, an additional £57.56 (95% CI: 17.69 to 97.44) per week to achieve the same living standards of families without a disabled child. This difference was greater for more deprived families, who needed between £59.28 (95% CI: 41.38 to 77.18) and £81.26 (95% CI: 53.35 to 109.38) more per week depending on the extent of mental health disability. Families of children with physical health disabilities, with or without mental health disabilities, required an additional £35.86 (95% CI: 13.77 to 57.96) per week, with economically deprived families requiring an extra £42.18 (95% CI: 26.38 to 57.97) per week. CONCLUSIONS: Mental and physical health disabilities among children and adolescents were associated with high additional costs for the family, especially for those from deprived economic backgrounds. Means testing could help achieve a more equitable redistribution of disability benefit.

Using compensating variation to measure the costs of child disability in the UK.

The objective of disability policy is to create a society where people with disabilities and their families enjoy an equal standard of living to those without disabilities, though evidence to underpin policy is sparse. We defined the compensating variation (CV) of child disability as the amount of additional income a family with a disabled child would require to achieve the same living standards as a similar family without a disabled child. The aims of this study were to estimate the CV for child disability and to explore how this varied for different levels of disability and reference levels of living standards. Using data on 54,641 families from the Family Resources Survey (2004-2012), we matched families with (cases) and without (controls) a disabled child on family and child characteristics plus living standards and calculated the income difference inclusive of disability benefits. Our findings suggest that across families with the most disabled children, a compensating variation equal to an extra £56-£79 a week was required to achieve the same living standards as matched families without a disabled child compared with the mean level of state disability benefit £47-£71 a week in this group.

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21).

BACKGROUND: There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017. METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely. DISCUSSION: This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.