A protocol for the development and piloting of quality measures to support the Healthier You : The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme

Background The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the UK creates an additional, potentially preventable burden on health care and service providers. The Healthier You: NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme aims to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes through identification of people at risk and the provision of intensive lifestyle change support. The provision of this care can be monitored through quality measurement at both the general practice and specialist service level. Aim To develop quality measures through piloting to assess the validity, credibility, acceptability, reliability and feasibility of any proposed measures. Design and setting The non-experimental mixed design piloting study consists of consensus testing and exploratory research with general practitioners (GPs), commissioners and patients from Herefordshire, England. Methods A mixed-method approach will be used to develop and validate measures for diabetes prevention care and evaluate their performance over a six month pilot period consisting of i) consensus testing using a modified RAND approach with GPs and commissioners, ii) four focus groups with 10-12 participants discussing experiences of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, perceived ability to access care and prevent diabetes, and views on potential quality measures, iii) piloting final measures with at least 5 general practices for baseline and 6 month data. Results The findings will inform the implementation of the diabetes prevention quality measures on a national scale whilst addressing any issue with validity, credibility, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. Conclusion Health care professionals and patients have the opportunity to evaluate the reliability, acceptability and validity of measure

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in the development of indicators to support incentive-based behaviour in primary care in England

In England, general practitioners are incentivized through a national pay-for-performance scheme to adopt evidence-based quality improvement initiatives using a portfolio of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators. We describe the development of the methods used to assess the cost-effectiveness of these pay-for-performance indicators and how they have contributed to the development of new indicators. Prior to analysis of new potential indicators, an economic subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Indicator Advisory Committee is formed to assess evidence on the cost-effectiveness of potential indicators in terms of the health benefits gained, compared to the cost of the intervention and the cost of the incentive. The expert subgroup is convened to reach consensus on the amounts that could potentially be paid to general practices for achieving new indicators. Indicators are also piloted in selected general practices and evidence gathered about their practical implementation. The methods used to assess economic viability of new pilot indicators represent a pragmatic and effective way of providing information to inform recommendations. Current policy to reduce QOF funding could shift the focus from national (QOF) to local schemes, with economic appraisal remaining central

Estimation of the direct health and indirect societal costs of diabetes in the UK using a cost of illness model

AimsThe direct cost of diabetes to the UK health system was estimated at around £10 billion in 2012. This analysis updates that estimate using more recent and accurate data sources.MethodsA pragmatic review of relevant data sources for UK nations was conducted, including population-level datasets and published literature, to generate estimates of costs separately for Type 1, Type 2 and gestational diabetes. A comprehensive cost framework, developed in collaboration with experts, was used to create a population-based cost of illness model. The key driver of the analysis was prevalence of diabetes and its complications. Estimates were made of the excess costs of diagnosis, treatment and diabetes-related complications compared with the general UK population. Estimates of the indirect costs of diabetes focused on productivity losses due to absenteeism and premature mortality.ResultsThe direct costs of diabetes in 2021/22 for the UK were estimated at £10.6 billion, of which just over 40% related to diagnosis and treatment, with the rest relating to the excess costs of complications. Indirect costs were estimated at £3.3 billion.Conclusions Diabetes remains a considerable cost burden in the UK and the majority of those costs are still spent on potentially preventable complications. Although rates of some complications are reducing, prevalence continues to increase and effective approaches to primary and secondary prevention continue to be needed. Improvements in data capture, data quality and reporting, and further research on the human and financial implications of increasing incidence of Type 2 diabetes in younger people are recommended.<br/

Digitally deployed, GP remote consultation video intervention that aims to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing rates are disproportionately high in the North of England. In addition to patients' complex health needs, clinician prescribing behaviour is also a key driver. Although strategies have been initiated to reduce opioid prescribing nationally, the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted service provision and created challenges for the system and health professionals to tackle this complex issue. A pilot intervention using smartphone video messaging has been developed to remotely explain the rationale for opioid reduction and facilitate self-initiation of support. The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential benefits, risks and economic consequences of 'at scale' implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a mixed-methods study comprising a quasi-experimental non-randomised before-and-after study and qualitative interviews. The intervention arm will comprise 50 General Practitioner (GP) Practices using System 1 (a clinical computer system hosting the intervention) who will deliver the video to their patients via text message. The control arm will comprise 50 practices using EMIS (a different computer system) who will continue usual care. Monthly practice level prescribing and consultation data will be observed for 6 months postintervention. A general linear model will be used to estimate the association between the exposure and the main outcome (opioid prescribing; average daily quantity (ADQ)/1000 specific therapeutic group age-sex related prescribing unit). Semi-structured interviews will be undertaken remotely with purposively selected participants including patients who received the video, and health professionals involved in sending out the videos and providing additional support. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/0296). Findings will be disseminated to the participating sites, participants, and commissioners, and in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05276089

Identifying the science and technology dimensions of emerging public policy issues through horizon scanning

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security