Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change

Prevalence and clinical characteristics of non-malignant CT detected incidental findings in the SUMMIT lung cancer screening cohort

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary and extrapulmonary incidental findings are frequently identified on CT scans performed for lung cancer screening. Uncertainty regarding their clinical significance and how and when such findings should be reported back to clinicians and participants persists. We examined the prevalence of non-malignant incidental findings within a lung cancer screening cohort and investigated the morbidity and relevant risk factors associated with incidental findings. We quantified the primary and secondary care referrals generated by our protocol. METHODS: The SUMMIT study (NCT03934866) is a prospective observational cohort study to examine the performance of delivering a low-dose CT (LDCT) screening service to a high-risk population. Spirometry, blood pressure, height/weight and respiratory history were assessed as part of a Lung Health Check. Individuals at high risk of lung cancer were offered an LDCT and returned for two further annual visits. This analysis is a prospective evaluation of the standardised reporting and management protocol for incidental findings developed for the study on the baseline LDCT. RESULTS: In 11 115 participants included in this analysis, the most common incidental findings were coronary artery calcification (64.2%) and emphysema (33.4%). From our protocolised management approach, the number of participants requiring review for clinically relevant findings in primary care was 1 in 20, and the number potentially requiring review in secondary care was 1 in 25. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings are common in lung cancer screening and can be associated with reported symptoms and comorbidities. A standardised reporting protocol allows systematic assessment and standardises onward management

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION: Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING: GRAIL

Centralisation of specialist cancer surgery services in two areas of England: the RESPECT-21 mixed-methods evaluation

Background: Centralising specialist cancer surgical services is an example of major system change. High-volume centres are recommended to improve specialist cancer surgery care and outcomes. Objective: Our aim was to use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the centralisation of specialist surgery for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophago-gastric cancers in two areas of England [i.e. London Cancer (London, UK), which covers north-central London, north-east London and west Essex, and Greater Manchester Cancer (Manchester, UK), which covers Greater Manchester]. Design: Stakeholder preferences for centralising specialist cancer surgery were analysed using a discrete choice experiment, surveying cancer patients (n = 206), health-care professionals (n = 111) and the general public (n = 127). Quantitative analysis of impact on care, outcomes and cost-effectiveness used a controlled before-and-after design. Qualitative analysis of implementation and outcomes of change used a multisite case study design, analysing documents (n = 873), interviews (n = 212) and non-participant observations (n = 182). To understand how lessons apply in other contexts, we conducted an online workshop with stakeholders from a range of settings. A theory-based framework was used to synthesise these approaches. Results: Stakeholder preferences – patients, health-care professionals and the public had similar preferences, prioritising reduced risk of complications and death, and better access to specialist teams. Travel time was considered least important. Quantitative analysis (impact of change) – only London Cancer’s centralisations happened soon enough for analysis. These changes were associated with fewer surgeons doing more operations and reduced length of stay [prostate –0.44 (95% confidence interval –0.55 to –0.34) days; bladder –0.563 (95% confidence interval –4.30 to –0.83) days; renal –1.20 (95% confidence interval –1.57 to –0.82) days]. The centralisation meant that renal patients had an increased probability of receiving non-invasive surgery (0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.08). We found no evidence of impact on mortality or re-admissions, possibly because risk was already low pre-centralisation. London Cancer’s prostate, oesophago-gastric and bladder centralisations had medium probabilities (79%, 62% and 49%, respectively) of being cost-effective, and centralising renal services was not cost-effective (12% probability), at the £30,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Qualitative analysis, implementation and outcomes – London Cancer’s provider-led network overcame local resistance by distributing leadership throughout the system. Important facilitators included consistent clinical leadership and transparent governance processes. Greater Manchester Cancer’s change leaders learned from history to deliver the oesophago-gastric centralisation. Greater Manchester Cancer’s urology centralisations were not implemented because of local concerns about the service model and local clinician disengagement. London Cancer’s network continued to develop post implementation. Consistent clinical leadership helped to build shared priorities and collaboration. Information technology difficulties had implications for interorganisational communication and how reliably data follow the patient. London Cancer’s bidding processes and hierarchical service model meant that staff reported feelings of loss and a perceived ‘us and them’ culture. Workshop – our findings resonated with workshop attendees, highlighting issues about change leadership, stakeholder collaboration and implications for future change and evaluation. Limitations: The discrete choice experiment used a convenience sample, limiting generalisability. Greater Manchester Cancer implementation delays meant that we could study the impact of only London Cancer changes. We could not analyse patient experience, quality of life or functional outcomes that were important to patients (e.g. continence). Future research: Future research may focus on impact of change on care options offered, patient experience, functional outcomes and long-term sustainability. Studying other approaches to achieving high-volume services would be valuable. Study registration: ational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Portfolio reference 19761

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable

Designing urban spaces and buildings to improve sustainability and quality of life in a warmer world

It is in cities that the negative impacts of a warming climate will be felt most strongly. The summer time comfort and well-being of the urban population will become increasingly compromised under future scenarios for climate change and urbanisation. In contrast to rural areas, where night-time relief from high daytime temperatures occurs as heat is lost to the sky, the city environment stores and traps heat and offers little respite from high temperatures. This urban heat island effect is responsible for temperature differences of up to 7 °C between cities and the country in the UK. We already have experience of the potential hazards of these higher temperatures. The majority of heat-related fatalities during the summer of 2003 were in urban areas. This means that the cooling of the urban environment is a high priority for urban planners and designers. Proven ways of doing this include altering the urban microclimate by modifying its heat absorption and emission, for example through urban greening, the use of high-reflectivity materials, and by increasing openness to allow cooling winds. Buildings themselves can also deliver improved comfort and higher levels of sustainability by taking advantage of exemplary façade, glazing and ventilation designs. In addition, changed behaviour by building occupants can help keep urban areas cool. The technology to reduce the future vulnerability of city dwellers to thermal discomfort is already largely in existence. But there is a need for complementary policy and planning commitments to manage its implementation, especially in existing buildings and urban areas.Heat island Adaptation Urban design