Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial compared Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT® LOUD) with standard NHS speech and language therapy (SLT) and a control arm in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with self-reported problems with voice or speech. This analysis compares costs and quality of life outcomes between the trial arms, and considers the validity of the alternative outcome measures for economic evaluations. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside the PD COMM pilot trial involving three arms: LSVT® LOUD treatment (n = 30); standard NHS SLT (n = 30); and a control arm (n = 29) excluded from receiving therapy for at least 6 months after randomisation unless deemed medically necessary. For all trial arms, resource use and NHS, social care and patient costs and quality of life were collected prospectively at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Total economic costs and outcomes (EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O) were considered over the 12-month follow-up period from an NHS payer perspective. Quality of life measures for economic evaluation of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease were compared. RESULTS: Whilst there was no difference between arms in voice or quality of life outcomes at 12 months, there were indications of differences at 3 months in favour of SLT, which need to be confirmed in the main trial. The estimated mean cost of NHS care was £3288 per patient per year for the LSVT® LOUD arm, £2033 for NHS SLT, and £1788 for the control arm. EQ-5D-3L was more strongly correlated to voice impairment than ICECAP-O, and was sensitive to differences in voice impairment between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot did not identify an effect of SLT on disease-specific or economic outcomes for PwPD at 12 months; however, there appeared to be improvements at 3 months. In addition to the sample size not powered to detect difference in cost-consequence analysis, many patients in the control arm started SLT during the 12-month period used for economic analysis, in line with the study protocol. The LSVT® LOUD intervention was more intense and therefore more costly. Early indications suggest that the preferred economic outcome measure for the full trial is EQ-5D-3L; however, the ICECAP-O should still be included to capture a broader measure of wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. Registered 22 March 2012.

Are the needs of people with multiple long-term conditions being met? Evidence from the 2018 General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate individual, practice and area level variation in patient-reported unmet need among those with long-term conditions, in the context of general practice (GP) appointments and support from community-based services in England. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from 199 150 survey responses. SETTING: Primary care and community-based services. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents to the 2018 English General Practice Patient Survey with at least one long-term condition. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the levels of unmet need in GP and local services among patients with multiple long-term conditions. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of variation explained by practice and area-level factors. RESULTS: There was no relationship between needs being fully met in patients' last practice appointment and number of long-term conditions once sociodemographic characteristics and health status were taken into account (5+conditions-OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09), but there was a relationship for having enough support from local services to manage conditions (5+conditions-OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88). Patients with multimorbidity that were younger, non-white or frail were less likely to have their needs fully met, both in GP and from local services. Differences between practices and local authorities explained minimal variation in unmet need. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of unmet need are high, particularly for support from community services to manage multiple conditions. Patients who could be targeted for support include people who feel socially isolated, and those who have difficulties with their day-to-day living. Younger patients and certain ethnic groups with multimorbidity are also more likely to have unmet needs. Increased personalisation and coordination of care among these groups may help in addressing their needs.

Implementing learning health systems in the UK NHS: Policy actions to improve collaboration and transparency and support innovation and better use of analytics.

Learning health systems (LHS) use digital health and care data to improve care, shorten the timeframe of improvement projects, and ensure these are based on real-world data. In the United Kingdom, policymakers are depending on digital innovation, driven by better use of data about current health service performance, to enable service transformation and a more sustainable health system. This paper examines what would be needed to develop LHS in the United Kingdom, considering national policy implications and actions, which local organisations and health systems could take. The paper draws on a seminar attended by academics, policymakers, and practitioners, a brief literature review, and feedback from policy experts and National Health Service (NHS) stakeholders. Although there are examples of some aspects of LHS in the UK NHS, it is hard to find examples where there is a continuous cycle of improvement driven by information and where analysis of data and implementing improvements is part of usual ways of working. The seminar and literature identified a number of barriers. Incentives and capacity to develop LHS are limited, and requires a shift in analytic capacity from regulation and performance, to quality improvement and transformation. The balance in priority given to research compared with implementation also needs to change. Policy initiatives are underway which address some barriers, including building analytical capacity, developing infrastructure, and data standards. The NHS and research partners are investing in infrastructure which could support LHS, although clinical buy in is needed to bring about improvement or address operational challenges. We identify a number of opportunities for local NHS organisations and systems to make better use of health data, and for ways that national policy could promote the collaboration and greater use of analytics which underpin the LHS concept.

Application of patient safety indicators internationally: a pilot study among seven countries.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential for international comparison of patient safety as part of the Health Care Quality Indicators project of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) by evaluating patient safety indicators originally published by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the USA, UK, Sweden, Spain, Germany, Canada and Australia in 2004 and 2005/2006. DATA SOURCES: Routine hospitalization-related administrative data from seven countries were analyzed. Using algorithms adapted to the diagnosis and procedure coding systems in place in each country, authorities in each of the participating countries reported summaries of the distribution of hospital-level and overall (national) rates for each AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator to the OECD project secretariat. RESULTS: Each country's vector of national indicator rates and the vector of American patient safety indicators rates published by AHRQ (and re-estimated as part of this study) were highly correlated (0.821-0.966). However, there was substantial systematic variation in rates across countries. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study reveals that AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators can be applied to international hospital data. However, the analyses suggest that certain indicators (e.g. 'birth trauma', 'complications of anesthesia') may be too unreliable for international comparisons. Data quality varies across countries; undercoding may be a systematic problem in some countries. Efforts at international harmonization of hospital discharge data sets as well as improved accuracy of documentation should facilitate future comparative analyses of routine databases.

Patient safety indicators for England from hospital administrative data: case-control analysis and comparison with US data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of deriving patient safety indicators for England from routine hospital data and whether they can indicate adverse outcomes for patients. DESIGN: Nine patient safety indicators developed by the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) were derived using hospital episode statistics for England for 2003-4, 2004-5, and 2005-6. A case-control analysis was undertaken to compare length of stay and mortality between cases (patients experiencing the particular safety event measured by an indicator) and controls matched for age, sex, health resource group (standard groupings of clinically similar treatments that use similar levels of healthcare resource), main specialty, and trust. Comparisons were undertaken with US data. SETTING: All NHS trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatients in NHS trusts. RESULTS: There was fair consistency in national rates for the nine indicators across three years. For all but one indicator, hospital stays were longer in cases than in matched controls (range 0.2-17.1 days, P<0.001). Mortality in cases was also higher than in controls (5.7-27.1%, P<0.001), except for the obstetric trauma indicators. Excess length of stay and mortality in cases was greatest for postoperative hip fracture and sepsis. England's rates were lower than US rates for these indicators. Increased length of stay in cases was generally greater in England than in the US. Excess mortality was also higher in England than in the US, except for the obstetric trauma indicators where there were few deaths in both countries. Differences between England and the US in excess length of stay and mortality were most marked for postoperative hip fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital administrative data provide a potentially useful low burden, low cost source of information on safety events. Indicators can be derived with English data and show that cases have poorer outcomes than matched controls. These data therefore have potential for monitoring safety events. Further validation, for example, of individual cases, is needed and levels of event recording need to improve. Differences between England and the US might reflect differences in the depth of event coding and in health systems and patterns of healthcare provision.

Ethnic variations in the experiences of mental health service users in England: results of a national patient survey programme.

BACKGROUND: Minority ethnic groups in the UK are reported to have a poor experience of mental health services, but comparative information is scarce. AIMS: To examine ethnic differences in patients' experience of community mental health services. METHOD: Trusts providing mental health services in England conducted surveys in 2004 and 2005 of users of community mental health services. Multiple regression was used to examine ethnic differences in responses. RESULTS: About 27 000 patients responded to each of the surveys, of whom 10% were of minority ethnic origin. In the 2004 survey, age, living alone, the 2004 survey, age, living alone, detention and hospital admissions were stronger predictors of patient experience than ethnicity. Self-reported mental health status had the strongest explanatory effect. In the 2005 survey, the main negative differences relative to the White British were for Asians. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity had a smaller effect on patient experience than other variables. Relative to the White British, the Black group did not report negative experiences whereas the Asian group were most likely to respond negatively. However, there is a need for improvements in services for minority ethnic groups, including access to talking therapies and better recording of ethnicity.

Measurement of the safety and quality of health care.

Measurement of safety and quality is fundamental to health care delivery. A variety of measures are needed to fully understand the system; quantitative and qualitative measures are both useful in different ways. Measures need to be valid, reliable, accurate, timely, collectable, meaningful, relevant and important to those who will use them. Clinicians value appropriate measures and respond to them.

Performance indicators. Benefits of the doubt.

Interviews and workshops with the public, health professionals and managers revealed dissatisfaction with the current system of performance indicators. The public were mostly unaware of the star system. Their priorities were; waiting times, treatment experience, staffing and patient environment. Health professionals and the public were concerned about the effects of a poor star-rating on an organisation.