Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services: a scoping review of interventions at the primary-secondary care interface.

Objectives Variation in patterns of referral from primary care can lead to inappropriate overuse or underuse of specialist resources. Our aim was to review the literature on strategies involving primary care that are designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services. Methods A scoping review to update a review published in 2006. We conducted a systematic literature search and qualitative evidence synthesis of studies across five intervention domains: transfer of services from hospital to primary care; relocation of hospital services to primary care; joint working between primary care practitioners and specialists; interventions to change the referral behaviour of primary care practitioners and interventions to change patient behaviour. Results The 183 studies published since 2005, taken with the findings of the previous review, suggest that transfer of services from secondary to primary care and strategies aimed at changing referral behaviour of primary care clinicians can be effective in reducing outpatient referrals and in increasing the appropriateness of referrals. Availability of specialist advice to primary care practitioners by email or phone and use of store-and-forward telemedicine also show potential for reducing outpatient referrals and hence reducing costs. There was little evidence of a beneficial effect of relocation of specialists to primary care, or joint primary/secondary care management of patients on outpatient referrals. Across all intervention categories there was little evidence available on cost-effectiveness. Conclusions There are a number of promising interventions which may improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services, including making it easier for primary care clinicians and specialists to discuss patients by email or phone. There remain substantial gaps in the evidence, particularly on cost-effectiveness, and new interventions should continue to be evaluated as they are implemented more widely. A move for specialists to work in the community is unlikely to be cost-effective without enhancing primary care clinicians' skills through education or joint consultations with complex patients.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project number 12/135/02).This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from SAGE via http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1355819616648982

Individual and country-level variables associated with the medicalization of birth : Multilevel analyses of IMAgiNE EURO data from 15 countries in the WHO European region

© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.OBJECTIVE: To investigate potential associations between individual and country-level factors and medicalization of birth in 15 European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Online anonymous survey of women who gave birth in 2020-2021. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression models estimating associations between indicators of medicalization (cesarean, instrumental vaginal birth [IVB], episiotomy, fundal pressure) and proxy variables related to care culture and contextual factors at the individual and country level. RESULTS: Among 27 173 women, 24.4% (n = 6650) had a cesarean and 8.8% (n = 2380) an IVB. Among women with IVB, 41.9% (n = 998) reported receiving fundal pressure. Among women with spontaneous vaginal births, 22.3% (n = 4048) had an episiotomy. Less respectful care, as perceived by the women, was associated with higher levels of medicalization. For example, women who reported having a cesarean, IVB, or episiotomy reported not feeling treated with dignity more frequently than women who did not have those interventions (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; OR 1.61; OR 1.51, respectively; all: P < 0.001). Country-level variables contributed to explaining some of the variance between countries. CONCLUSION: We recommend a greater emphasis in health policies on promotion of respectful and patient-centered care approaches to birth to enhance women's experiences of care, and the development of a European-level indicator to monitor medicalization of reproductive care.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Outpatient services and primary care: scoping review, substudies and international comparisons

This study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B.Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services.Findings from the scoping reviewEvidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals.Findings from the substudiesBecause of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS.ConclusionsFor many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience. Funding, The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Outpatient services and primary care: scoping review, substudies and international comparisons

Aim This study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B. Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services. Findings from the scoping review Evidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals. Findings from the substudies Because of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS. Conclusions For many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience.The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Community hospitals and their services in the NHS: identifying transferable learning from international developments – scoping review, systematic review, country reports and case studies

Background The notion of a community hospital in England is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential. Objectives This study sought to (1) define the nature and scope of service provision models that fit under the umbrella term ‘community hospital’ in the UK and other high-income countries, (2) analyse evidence of their effectiveness and efficiency, (3) explore the wider role and impact of community engagement in community hospitals, (4) understand how models in other countries operate and asses their role within the wider health-care system, and (5) identify the potential for community hospitals to perform an integrative role in the delivery of health and social care. Methods A multimethod study including a scoping review of community hospital models, a linked systematic review of their effectiveness and efficiency, an analysis of experiences in Australia, Finland, Italy, Norway and Scotland, and case studies of four community hospitals in Finland, Italy and Scotland. Results The evidence reviews found that community hospitals provide a diverse range of services, spanning primary, secondary and long-term care in geographical and health system contexts. They can offer an effective and efficient alternative to acute hospitals. Patient experience was frequently reported to be better at community hospitals, and the cost-effectiveness of some models was found to be similar to that of general hospitals, although evidence was limited. Evidence from other countries showed that community hospitals provide a wide spectrum of health services that lie on a continuum between serving a ‘geographic purpose’ and having a specific population focus, mainly older people. Structures continue to evolve as countries embark on major reforms to integrate health and social care. Case studies highlighted that it is important to consider local and national contexts when looking at how to transfer models across settings, how to overcome barriers to integration beyond location and how the community should be best represented. Limitations The use of a restricted definition may have excluded some relevant community hospital models, and the small number of countries and case studies included for comparison may limit the transferability of findings for England. Although this research provides detailed insights into community hospitals in five countries, it was not in its scope to include the perspective of patients in any depth. Conclusions At a time when emphasis is being placed on integrated and community-based care, community hospitals have the potential to assume a more strategic role in health-care delivery locally, providing care closer to people’s homes. There is a need for more research into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community hospitals, the role of the community and optimal staff profile(s). Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Impact of issuing longer- versus shorter-duration prescriptions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Long-term conditions place a substantial burden on primary care services, with drug therapy being a core aspect of clinical management. However, the ideal frequency for issuing repeat prescriptions for these medications is unknown. AIM: To examine the impact of longer-duration (2-4 months) versus shorter-duration (28-day) prescriptions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of primary care studies. METHOD: Scientific and grey literature databases were searched from inception until 21 October 2015. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials and observational studies that examined longer prescriptions (2-4 months) compared with shorter prescriptions (28 days) in patients with stable, chronic conditions being treated in primary care. Outcomes of interest were: health outcomes, adverse events, medication adherence, medication wastage, professional administration time, pharmacists' time and/or costs, patient experience, and patient out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: From a search total of 24 876 records across all databases, 13 studies were eligible for review. Evidence of moderate quality from nine studies suggested that longer prescriptions are associated with increased medication adherence. Evidence from six studies suggested that longer prescriptions may increase medication waste, but results were not always statistically significant and were of very low quality. No eligible studies were identified that measured any of the other outcomes of interest, including health outcomes and adverse events. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence relating to the overall impact of differing prescription lengths on clinical and health service outcomes, although studies do suggest medication adherence may improve with longer prescriptions. UK recommendations to provide shorter prescriptions are not substantiated by the current evidence base

Individual and country-level variables associated with the medicalization of birth: Multilevel analyses of IMAgiNE EURO data from 15 countries in the WHO European region

Objective: To investigate potential associations between individual and country-level factors and medicalization of birth in 15 European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Online anonymous survey of women who gave birth in 2020–2021. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression models estimating associations between indicators of medicalization (cesarean, instrumental vaginal birth [IVB], episiotomy, fundal pressure) and proxy variables related to care culture and contextual factors at the individual and country level. Results: Among 27 173 women, 24.4% (n = 6650) had a cesarean and 8.8% (n = 2380) an IVB. Among women with IVB, 41.9% (n = 998) reported receiving fundal pressure. Among women with spontaneous vaginal births, 22.3% (n = 4048) had an episiotomy. Less respectful care, as perceived by the women, was associated with higher levels of medicalization. For example, women who reported having a cesarean, IVB, or episiotomy reported not feeling treated with dignity more frequently than women who did not have those interventions (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; OR 1.61; OR 1.51, respectively; all: P< 0.001). Country-level variables contributed to explaining some of the variance between countries. Conclusion: We recommend a greater emphasis in health policies on promotion of respectful and patient-centered care approaches to birth to enhance women's experiences of care, and the development of a European-level indicator to monitor medicalization of reproductive care

Women's perception on the quality of maternal and newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic in German-speaking countries: Findings from the IMAgiNE EURO project comparing data from Germany, Switzerland and Austria.

PROBLEM: Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic compromised maternal and newborn care. BACKGROUND: Countries in the German speaking area share several clinical care guidelines but differed significantly in the strictness of COVID-19 protective measures. AIM: To investigate the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the German-speaking area and explore associations between the reorganisational changes due to COVID-19 and QMNC, as described with WHO Standards-based Quality Measures. METHODS: As part of the IMAgiNE EURO study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04847336), we conducted an online survey on the QMNC in the German-speaking area, including women who gave birth in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Descriptive statistics, Spearman rank correlation coefficient and multivariable quantile regression were used. FINDINGS: Out of a total of 70,721 women accessing the online questionnaire, 1,875 were included (Germany: n = 1,053, Switzerland: n = 494, Austria: n = 328). Significant differences across countries were found in Quality Measures. In Switzerland, women scored Quality Measures more favourable than in Germany and Austria in all four sub-indexes of QMNC. In Austria, Quality Measures gaps in the sub-index 'Experience of care' were higher. The sub-index 'Reorganisational changes due to COVID-19' correlated weakly to strongly with the other sub-indexes (between r = 0.33 and r = 0.62, p < 0.001 for all correlations). DISCUSSION: Midwives and other health professional should pay particular attention to the provision of respectful, high-quality care. CONCLUSION: To effectively improve QMNC, further research is essential to monitor the quality of care and develop targeted interventions beyond the COVID-19 pandemic addressing inherent challenges in the organisation and delivery of care