Develop an Improved SDDOT Construction Cost Index

311219A highway construction cost index (HCCI) is an indicator of the purchasing power of a highway agency. Highway agencies can monitor their construction market conditions using HCCIs to make various financial planning decisions. The main goal of this study is to modernize the HCCI system of South Dakota DOT by developing an enhanced HCCI calculation and forecasting methodologies and a software program by incorporating recent guidance from the Federal Highway Administration and adopting advanced theories on HCCI calculation. To achieve the goal, the study a) reviewed the current HCCI calculation methodology used by the agency, b) interviewed potential HCCI users from South Dakota, c) developed a proven multidimensional HCCI calculation methodology using the concept of the dynamic item basket, and d) developed two methods to forecast HCCIs, and e) developed a software program to automate the HCCI calculation and forecasting processes. In addition to the overall HCCI, more than a dozen sub-HCCIs were developed to show more granular market conditions across the state of South Dakota. The sub-HCCIs showed that specific construction market conditions, such as rural and urban market conditions, do not necessarily follow the trend of the overall statewide market condition. For HCCI forecasting, a linear regression model provided a better result than the weighted time series method. The methodologies and the software program developed for this research are expected to aid SDDOT in improving its ability to monitor the construction market trend closely and more accurately. The availability of more granular market conditions from sub-HCCIs are expected to increase the use of HCCIs at SDDOT

Virtual Touch (TM) Quantification to Diagnose and Monitor Liver Fibrosis in Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

King’s Technology Evaluation Centre is funded by NICE to act as an External Assessment Centre for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. The NHS has a financial interest in the guidance issued by NICE as a result of this work and two authors are NHS employees (Prof. Keevil and Dr. Lewis

Improving outcomes for people in mental health crisis: a rapid synthesis of the evidence for available models of care

BACKGROUND: Crisis Concordat was established to improve outcomes for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The Crisis Concordat sets out four stages of the crisis care pathway: (1) access to support before crisis point; (2) urgent and emergency access to crisis care; (3) quality treatment and care in crisis; and (4) promoting recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the models of care for improving outcomes at each stage of the care pathway. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for guidelines, reviews and, where necessary, primary studies. The searches were performed on 25 and 26 June 2014 for NHS Evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and PROSPERO databases, and on 11 November 2014 for MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. Relevant reports and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: When guidelines covered a topic comprehensively, further literature was not assessed; however, where there were gaps, systematic reviews and then primary studies were assessed in order of priority. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Systematic reviews were critically appraised using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews assessment tool, trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, studies without a control group were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prognostic studies tool and qualitative studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for each stage of the care pathway structured according to the type of care model assessed. The type and range of evidence identified precluded the use of meta-analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One review of reviews, six systematic reviews, nine guidelines and 15 primary studies were included. There was very limited evidence for access to support before crisis point. There was evidence of benefits for liaison psychiatry teams in improving service-related outcomes in emergency departments, but this was often limited by potential confounding in most studies. There was limited evidence regarding models to improve urgent and emergency access to crisis care to guide police officers in their Mental Health Act responsibilities. There was positive evidence on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of crisis resolution teams but variability in implementation. Current work from the Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention study aims to improve fidelity in delivering these models. Crisis houses and acute day hospital care are also currently recommended by NICE. There was a large evidence base on promoting recovery with a range of interventions recommended by NICE likely to be important in helping people stay well. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most evidence was rated as low or very low quality, but this partly reflects the difficulty of conducting research into complex interventions for people in a mental health crisis and does not imply that all research was poorly conducted. However, there are currently important gaps in research for a number of stages of the crisis care pathway. Particular gaps in research on access to support before crisis point and urgent and emergency access to crisis care were found. In addition, more high-quality research is needed on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mental health crisis care, including effective components of inpatient care, post-discharge transitional care and Community Mental Health Teams/intensive case management teams. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013279. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme

Improving risk management for violence in mental health services: a multimethods approach

contractual_start_date: 07-2008 editorial_review_begun: 07-2014 accepted_for_publication: 06-2015contractual_start_date: 07-2008 editorial_review_begun: 07-2014 accepted_for_publication: 06-2015contractual_start_date: 07-2008 editorial_review_begun: 07-2014 accepted_for_publication: 06-2015contractual_start_date: 07-2008 editorial_review_begun: 07-2014 accepted_for_publication: 06-201

Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee : systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied chondrocyte implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI

A mixed-methods study exploring the characteristics and needs of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England: implications for service organisation

Background: Forensic psychiatric services provide care for those with mental disorders and offending behaviour. Concerns have been expressed that patients may stay for too long in too high levels of security. The economic burden of these services is high, and they are highly restrictive for patients. There is no agreed standard for ‘long stay’; we defined a length of stay exceeding 5 years in medium secure care, 10 years in high secure care or 15 years in a combination of both settings as long stay. Objectives: To (1) estimate the number of long-stay patients in secure settings; (2) describe patients’ characteristics, needs and care pathways and the reasons for their prolonged stay; (3) identify patients’ perceptions of their treatment and quality of life; and (4) explore stakeholders’ views on long stay. Design: A mixed-methods approach, including a cross-sectional survey (on 1 April 2013) of all patients in participating units to identify long-stay patients [work package (WP) 1], file reviews and consultant questionnaires for long-stay patients (WP2), interviews with patients (WP3) and focus groups with other stakeholders (WP4). Setting: All three high secure hospitals and 23 medium secure units (16 NHS and 9 independent providers) in England. Participants: Information was gathered on all patients in participating units (WP1), from which 401 long-stay patients were identified (WP2), 40 patients (WP3), 17 international and 31 UK experts were interviewed and three focus groups were held (WP4). Results: Approximately 23.5% of high secure patients and 18% of medium secure patients were long-stay patients. We estimated that there are currently about 730 forensic long-stay patients in England. The source of a patient’s admission and the current section of the Mental Health Act [Great Britain. Mental Health Act 1983 (as Amended by the Mental Health Act 2007). London: The Stationery Office; 2007] under which they were admitted predicted long-stay status. Long-stay patients had complex pathways, moving ‘around’ between settings rather than moving forward. They were most likely to be detained under a hospital order with restrictions (section 37/41) and to have disturbed backgrounds with previous psychiatric admissions, self-harm and significant offending histories. The most common diagnosis was schizophrenia, but 47% had been diagnosed with personality disorder. Only 50% had current formal psychological therapies. The rates of violent incidents within institutions and seclusion were high, and a large proportion had unsuccessful referrals to less secure settings. Most patients had some contact with their families. We identified five classes of patients within the long-stay sample with different characteristics. Patients differed in their attribution of reasons for long stay (internal/external), outlook (positive/negative), approach (active/passive) and readiness for change. Other countries have successfully developed specific long-stay services; however, UK experts were reluctant to accept the reality of long stay and that the medical model of ‘cure’ does not work with this group. Limitations: We did not conduct file reviews on non-long-stay patients; therefore, we cannot say which factors differentiate between long-stay patients and non-long-stay patients. Conclusions: The number of long-stay patients in England is high, resulting in high resource use. Significant barriers were identified in developing designated long-stay services. Without a national strategy, these issues are likely to remain. Future work: To compare long-stay patients and non-long-stay patients. To evaluate new service models specifically designed for long-stay patients. Study registration: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Portfolio 129376. Funding: The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programm