Stakeholder perspectives on new ways of delivering unscheduled health care: the role of ownership and organisational identity

<b>Rationale, aims and objectives</b>: To explore stakeholder perspectives of the implementation of a new, national integrated nurse-led telephone advice and consultation service (NHS 24), comparing the views of stakeholders from different health care organisations. <b>Methods</b>: Semi-structured interviews with 26 stakeholders including partner organisations located in primary and secondary unscheduled care settings (general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours co-operative; accident and emergency department; national ambulance service), members of NHS 24 and national policymakers. Attendance at key meetings, documentary review and email implementation diaries provided a contextual history of events with which interview data could be compared. <b>Results</b>: The contextual history of events highlighted a fast-paced implementation process, with little time for reflection. Key areas of partner concern were increasing workload, the clinical safety of nurse triage and the lack of communication across the organisations. Concerns were most apparent within the GP out-of-hours co-operative, leading to calls for the dissolution of the partnership. Accident and emergency and ambulance service responses were more conciliatory, suggesting that such problems were to be expected within the developmental phase of a new organisation. Further exploration of these responses highlighted the sense of ownership within the GP co-operative, with GPs having both financial and philosophical ownership of the co-operative. This was not apparent within the other two partner organisations, in particular the ambulance service, which operated on a regional model very similar to that of NHS 24. <b>Conclusions</b>: As the delivery of unscheduled primary health care crosses professional boundaries and locations, different organisations and professional groups must develop new ways of partnership working, developing trust and confidence in each other. The results of this study highlight, for the first time, the key importance of understanding the professional ownership and identity of individual organisations, in order to facilitate the most effective mechanisms to enable that partnership working

Paying for the quantity and quality of hospital care : the foundations and evolution of payment policy in England

Prospective payment arrangements are now the main form of hospital funding in most developed countries. An essential component of such arrangements is the classification system used to differentiate patients according to their expected resource requirements. In this article we describe the evolution and structure of Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) in England and the way in which costs are calculated for patients allocated to each HRG. We then describe how payments are made, how policy has evolved to incentivise improvements in quality, and how prospective payment is being applied outside hospital settings

Hospital accounting and the history of health-care rationing

Focussing on the period from 1948 to 1997, this paper examines the history of rationing in the British National Health Service (NHS), with special reference to the role of hospital accounting in this context. The paper suggests that concerns regarding rationing first emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in response to the application of economic theories to the health services, and that rationing only became an issue of wider concern when the NHS increasingly came to resemble economic models of health services in the early 1990s. The paper moreover argues that, unlike in the USA, hospital accounting did not play a significant role in allocating or withholding health resources in Britain. Rudimentary information systems as well as resistance from medical professionals are identified as significant factors in this context

Reducing avoidable inequalities in health: a new criterion for setting health care capitation payments

Traditionally, most health care systems which pretend to any sort of rationality and cost control have sought to allocate their limited funds in order to secure equal opportunity of access for equal need. The UK government is implementing a fundamental change of resource allocation philosophy towards contributing to the reduction of avoidable health inequalities. The purpose of this essay is to explore some of the economic issues that arise when seeking to allocate health care resources according to the new criterion. It indicates that health inequalities might arise because of variations in the quality of health services, variations in access to those services, or variations in the way people produce health, and that the resource allocation consequences differ depending on which source is being addressed. The paper shows that an objective of reducing health inequalities is not necessarily compatible with an objective of equity of access, nor with the objective of maximising health gain. The results have profound consequences for approaches towards economic evaluation, the role of clinical guidelines and performance management, as well as for resource allocation methods

Prescription for nursing informatics in pre-registration nurse education.

Nurses need to be able to use information and communications technology not only to support their own practice, but also to help their patients make best use of it. This article argues that nurses are not currently adequately prepared to work with information and technology through their pre-registration education. Reflecting the lack of nursing informatics expertise, it is recommended that all pre-registration nursing programmes should have access to a nursing informatics specialist. A prescription to meet the informatics needs of the newly qualified nurse is proposed. This places the areas that need to be included in pre-registration education into broad groups that both articulate the competencies that nurses need to develop, and indicate why they are needed, rather than providing context-free checklists of skills. This is presented as a binary scatter chart with two axes, skill to knowledge and technology to information

Differences in the quality of primary medical care for CVD and diabetes across the NHS: evidence from the quality and outcomes framework

Background: Health policy in the UK has rapidly diverged since devolution in 1999. However, there is relatively little comparative data available to examine the impact of this natural experiment in the four UK countries. The Quality and Outcomes Framework of the 2004 General Medical Services Contract provides a new and potentially rich source of comparable clinical quality data through which we compare quality of primary medical care for coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, hypertension and diabetes across the four UK countries. <p/>Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken involving 10,064 general practices in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The main outcome measures were prevalence rates for CHD, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Achievement on 14 simple process, 3 complex process, 9 intermediate outcome and 5 treatment indicators for the four clinical areas. <p/>Results: Prevalence varies by up to 28% between the four UK countries, which is not reflected in resource distribution between countries, and penalises practices in the high prevalence countries (Wales and Scotland). Differences in simple process measures across countries are small. Larger differences are found for complex process, intermediate outcome and treatment measures, most notably for Wales, which has consistently lower quality of care. Scotland has generally higher quality than England and Northern Ireland is most consistently the highest quality. <p/>Conclusion: Previously identified weaknesses in Wales related to waiting times appear to reflect a more general quality problem within NHS Wales. Identifying explanations for the observed differences is limited by the lack of comparable data on practice resources and organisation. Maximising the value of cross-jurisdictional comparisons of the ongoing natural experiment of health policy divergence within the UK requires more detailed examination of resource and organisational differences

England’s Electronic Prescription Service: Infrastructure in an Institutional Setting

We describe the development of the Electronic Prescription Service (EPS), the solution for the electronic transmission of prescriptions adopted by the English NHS for primary care. The chapter is based on both an analysis of data collected as part of a nationally commissioned evaluation of EPS, and on reports of contemporary developments in the service. Drawing on the notion of an installed infrastructural base, we illustrate how EPS has been assembled within a rich institutional and organizational context including causal pasts, contemporary practices and policy visions. This process of assembly is traced using three perspectives; as the realization and negotiation of constraints found in the wider NHS context, as a response to inertia arising from limited resources and weak incentive structures, and as a purposive fidelity to the existing institutional cultures of the NHS. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the significance of this analysis for notions of an installed base

Regional variation in the productivity of the English national health service

Variation in the provision of health care has long been a policy concern. We adapt the framework for productivity measurement used in the National Accounts, making it applicable for sub-national comparisons using cross-sectional data. We assess the productivity of the National Health Service (NHS) across regions of England, termed Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs). Productivity is calculated by comparing the total amount of healthcare output to total inputs for each region, standardised to the national average. Healthcare output comprises 6500 different categories, capturing the number and type of NHS patients treated and the quality of care received. Healthcare inputs include NHS and agency staff, supplies, equipment and capital. We find that productivity varies from 5% above to 6% below the national average. Productivity is highest in South West SHA and lowest in East Midlands, South Central and Yorkshire and The Humber SHAs. We estimate that if all regions were as productive as the most productive region in England, the NHS could treat the same number of patients with £3.2bn fewer resources each year. The methods developed lend themselves to investigate variations in productivity in other types of healthcare organisations and health systems

Case-mix & patients' reports of outcome in Independent Sector Treatment Centres: Comparison with NHS providers

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable concern expressed about the outcomes achieved in Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) introduced in England since 2003. Our aim was to compare the case-mix and patients' reported outcomes of surgery in ISTCs and in NHS providers. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 769 patients treated in six ISTCs and 1895 treated in 20 NHS providers (acute hospitals and treatment centres) in England during 2006-07. Participants underwent one of three day surgery procedures (inguinal hernia repair, varicose vein surgery, cataract extraction) or hip or knee replacement. Change in patient-reported health status and health related quality of life (measured using a disease-specific and a generic (EQ-5D) instrument) was assessed either 3-months (day surgery) or 6-months (hip/knee) after surgery. In addition patient-reported post-operative complications and an overall assessment of success of surgery were collected. Outcome measures were adjusted (using multivariable regression) for patient characteristics (disease severity, duration of symptoms, age, sex, socioeconomic status, general health, previous similar surgery, comorbidity). RESULTS: Post-operative response rates varied by procedure (73%-88%) and were similar for those treated in ISTCs and NHS facilities. Patients treated in ISTCs were healthier, were less likely to have any comorbidity and, for those undergoing cataract surgery or joint replacement, their primary condition was less severe. Those undergoing hernia repair or joint replacement were less likely to have had similar surgery before. When adjustment was made for pre-operative characteristics, patients undergoing cataract surgery or hip replacement in ISTCs achieved a slightly greater improvement in functional status and quality of life than those treated in NHS facilities, while the opposite was true of patients undergoing hernia repair. No significant differences were found for the two other procedures. Patients treated in ISTCs were less likely to report post-operative problems than those treated in NHS facilities for cataract surgery (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.70), hernia repair (0.42; 0.28-0.63) and knee replacement (0.44; 0.28-0.69). Most patients described the result of their operation as excellent, very good or good, regardless of where they were treated. CONCLUSION: The case-mix of patients treated in ISTCs differs from that in NHS providers, in line with the intention of the contracts. Caution is needed in interpreting the observation that patients treated in ISTCs reported slightly better outcomes as very few ISTCs participated, case-mix adjustment might have been insufficient, and patients' reports might have been biased as they were more likely to be satisfied with the way they were treated