Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy ; 20(6): 905-917, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35869355

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Male , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , London , State Medicine , Electronic Health Records , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , England
2.
J Health Serv Res Policy ; 27(4): 301-312, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35471103

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change.


Subject(s)
Leadership , Neoplasms , Health Services , Humans , Male , Organizational Innovation , Workload
3.
J Health Serv Res Policy ; 26(1): 4-11, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32508182

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Leadership , Neoplasms , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , London
4.
BMC Cancer ; 18(1): 226, 2018 02 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29486730

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Caregivers , Health Personnel , Patients , Surgical Oncology/standards , England , Humans , Male , Patient Preference , Surgical Oncology/trends , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Implement Sci ; 11(1): 155, 2016 11 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27884193

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/surgery , Kidney Neoplasms/surgery , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Surgical Oncology/methods , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Humans , Male
6.
BMJ Case Rep ; 20092009.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21686642

ABSTRACT

A 48-year-old man was admitted under the care of urologists with acute renal failure and septicaemia secondary to pyelonephritis. Upon investigation, he was found to have renal stone disease secondary to a parathyroid adenoma. Further tests revealed high pituitary hormone and gastrin values, confirming the diagnosis of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1) and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Soon after this he experienced a series of renal complications due to his renal stone disease and multiple complications of his gastrinoma, including two gastrointestinal perforations and three episodes of significant upper gastrointestinal bleeds (two of which required laparotomies), and a full length oesophageal stricture-all within the span of 9 months. His complications were managed appropriately and the oesophageal stricture was treated with a full length metallic stent. He was discharged home in a reasonably good condition with normal swallowing, but unfortunately died of aspiration pneumonia 3 weeks later.

7.
World J Surg Oncol ; 6: 77, 2008 Jul 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18644105

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection has remained the mainstay of treatment of GIST with a 5-year-survival of 28-35%. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Imatinib) has revolutionised the treatment of these tumours. The current research is directed towards expanding the role of this drug in the treatment of GIST. We present our experience of managing GIST in this institute. METHODS: This is a case note study of patients identified from a prospectively kept database from January 2000 to August 2007. RESULTS: 16 patients were diagnosed with GIST. The median age was 66 years (range 46 to 82) and the male to female ratio was 9:7. Eleven patients underwent surgery, 9 of which had R0 resection (2 laparoscopic, 1 converted to open), one had an open biopsy and one had a debulking procedure. 3 patients were inoperable and 2 were found to be unfit for surgery. Five patients received Imatinib (2 postoperatively). The risk assessment based on morphological criteria showed that 4 patients had low, 4 had intermediate and 8 had high malignant potential. The median follow up was for 12 months (range 3-72); 2 patients died of unrelated causes at 6 and 9 months after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Most GISTs can be managed effectively using existing protocols. However currently there is no evidence based guidance available on the management of GIST in the following situations-role of debulking surgery, the follow up of benign tumours not requiring surgical resection and role of laparoscopic surgery. Further research is needed to answer these questions.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors/drug therapy , Piperazines/therapeutic use , Pyrimidines/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Benzamides , Female , Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors/pathology , Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors/surgery , Humans , Imatinib Mesylate , Male , Middle Aged , Physicians , Prognosis , Protein-Tyrosine Kinases/antagonists & inhibitors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...