Assessing the impact of a new health sector pay system upon NHS staff in England

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay and pay systems are a critical element in any health sector human resource strategy. Changing a pay system can be one strategy to achieve or sustain organizational change. This paper reports on the design and implementation of a completely new pay system in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. 'Agenda for Change' constituted the largest-ever attempt to introduce a new pay system in the UK public services, covering more than one million staff. Its objectives were to improve the delivery of patient care as well as enhance staff recruitment, retention and motivation, and to facilitate new ways of working.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was the first independent assessment of the impact of Agenda for Change at a local and national level. The methods used in the research were a literature review; review of 'grey' unpublished documentation provided by key stakeholders in the process; analysis of available data; interviews with key national informants (representing government, employers and trade unions), and case studies conducted with senior human resource managers in ten NHS hospitals in England</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most of the NHS trust managers interviewed were in favour of Agenda for Change, believing it would assist in delivering improvements in patient care and staff experience. The main benefits highlighted were: 'fairness', moving different staff groups on to harmonized conditions; equal pay claim 'protection'; and scope to introduce new roles and working practices.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Agenda for Change took several years to design, and has only recently been implemented. Its very scale and central importance to NHS costs and delivery of care argues for a full assessment at an early stage so that lessons can be learned and any necessary changes made. This paper highlights weaknesses in evaluation and limitations in progress. The absence of systematically derived and applied impact indicators makes it difficult to assess impact and impact variations. Similarly, the lack of any full and systematic evaluation constrained the overall potential for Agenda for Change to deliver improvements to the NHS.</p

Identifying care-home residents in routine healthcare datasets:a diagnostic test accuracy study of five methods

Background: there is no established method to identify care-home residents in routine healthcare datasets. Methods matching patient’s addresses to known care-home addresses have been proposed in the UK, but few have been formally evaluated. Study design: prospective diagnostic test accuracy study. Methods: four independent samples of 5,000 addresses from Community Health Index (CHI) population registers were sampled for two NHS Scotland Health Boards on 1 April 2017, with one sample of adults aged ≥65 years and one of all residents. To derive the reference standard, all 20,000 addresses were manually adjudicated as ‘care-home address’ or not. The performance of five methods (NHS Scotland assigned CHI Institution Flag, exact address matching, postcode matching, Phonics and Markov) was evaluated compared to the reference standard. Results: the CHI Institution Flag had a high PPV 97–99% in all four test sets, but poorer sensitivity 55–89%. Exact address matching failed in every case. Postcode matching had higher sensitivity than the CHI flag 78–90%, but worse PPV 77–85%. Area under the receiver operating curve values for Phonics and Markov scores were 0.86–0.95 and 0.93–0.98, respectively. Phonics score with cut-off ≥13 had PPV 92–97% with sensitivity 72–87%. Markov PPVs were 90–95% with sensitivity 69–90% with cut-off ≥29.6. Conclusions: more complex address matching methods greatly improve identification compared to the existing NHS Scotland flag or postcode matching, although no method achieved both sensitivity and positive predictive value &gt; 95%. Choice of method and cut-offs will be determined by the specific needs of researchers and practitioners

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. REVIEW METHODS: In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. RESULTS: An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. LIMITATIONS: The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

An observational study of Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation: DEVELOP-UK

Background: Many patients awaiting lung transplantation die before a donor organ becomes available. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows initially unusable donor lungs to be assessed and reconditioned for clinical use. Objective: The objective of the Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EVLP in increasing UK lung transplant activity. Design: A multicentre, unblinded, non-randomised, non-inferiority observational study to compare transplant outcomes between EVLP-assessed and standard donor lungs. Setting: Multicentre study involving all five UK officially designated NHS adult lung transplant centres. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced lung disease accepted onto the lung transplant waiting list. Intervention: The study intervention was EVLP assessment of donor lungs before determining suitability for transplantation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was survival during the first 12 months following lung transplantation. Secondary outcome measures were patient-centred outcomes that are influenced by the effectiveness of lung transplantation and that contribute to the health-care costs. Results: Lungs from 53 donors unsuitable for standard transplant were assessed with EVLP, of which 18 (34%) were subsequently transplanted. A total of 184 participants received standard donor lungs. Owing to the early closure of the study, a non-inferiority analysis was not conducted. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival at 12 months was 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.83] for the EVLP arm and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) for the standard arm. The hazard ratio for overall 12-month survival in the EVLP arm relative to the standard arm was 1.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 4.67). Patients in the EVLP arm required ventilation for a longer period and stayed longer in an intensive therapy unit (ITU) than patients in the standard arm, but duration of overall hospital stay was similar in both groups. There was a higher rate of very early grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in the EVLP arm, but rates of PGD did not differ between groups after 72 hours. The requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was higher in the EVLP arm (7/18, 38.8%) than in the standard arm (6/184, 3.2%). There were no major differences in rates of chest radiograph abnormalities, infection, lung function or rejection by 12 months. The cost of EVLP transplants is approximately £35,000 higher than the cost of standard transplants, as a result of the cost of the EVLP procedure, and the increased ECMO use and ITU stay. Predictors of cost were quality of life on joining the waiting list, type of transplant and number of lungs transplanted. An exploratory model comparing a NHS lung transplant service that includes EVLP and standard lung transplants with one including only standard lung transplants resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,000. Interviews showed that patients had a good understanding of the need for, and the processes of, EVLP. If EVLP can increase the number of usable donor lungs and reduce waiting, it is likely to be acceptable to those waiting for lung transplantation. Study limitations include small numbers in the EVLP arm, limiting analysis to descriptive statistics and the EVLP protocol change during the study. Conclusions: Overall, one-third of donor lungs subjected to EVLP were deemed suitable for transplant. Estimated survival over 12 months was lower than in the standard group, but the data were also consistent with no difference in survival between groups. Patients receiving these additional transplants experience a higher rate of early graft injury and need for unplanned ECMO support, at increased cost. The small number of participants in the EVLP arm because of early study termination limits the robustness of these conclusions. The reason for the increased PGD rates, high ECMO requirement and possible differences in lung injury between EVLP protocols needs evaluation

Impact of a nurse-led intervention to improve screening for cardiovascular risk factors in people with severe mental illnesses. Phase-two cluster randomised feasibility trial of community mental health teams

Background: People with severe mental illnesses (SMI) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Clinical guidelines recommend regular screening for CVD risk factors. We evaluated a nurse led intervention to improve screening rates across the primary-secondary care interface.Methods: Six community mental health teams (CMHTs) were randomised to receive either the nurse led intervention plus education pack (n = 3) or education pack only (n = 3). Intervention (6 months): The nurse promoted CVD screening in primary care and then in CMHTs. Patients who remained unscreened were offered screening by the nurse. After the intervention participants with SMI were recruited from each CMHT to collect outcome data. Main outcome: Numbers screened during the six months, confirmed in General Practice notes.Results: All six CMHTs approached agreed to randomisation. 121 people with SMI participated in outcome interviews during two waves of recruitment (intervention arm n = 59, control arm n = 62). Participants from both arms of the trial had similar demographic profiles and rates of previous CVD screening in the previous year, with less than 20% having been screened for each risk factor. After the trial, CVD screening had increased in both arms but participants from the intervention arm were significantly more likely to have received screening for blood pressure (96% vs 68%; adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) 13.6; 95% CI: 3.5-38.4), cholesterol (66.7% vs 26.9%, OR 6.1; 3.2-11.5), glucose (66.7% vs 36.5% OR 4.4; 2.7-7.1), BMI (92.5% vs 65.2% OR 6.5; 2.1-19.6), and smoking status (88.2% vs 57.8% OR 5.5; 3.2-9.5) and have a 10 year CVD risk score calculated (38.2% vs 10.9%) OR 5.2 1.8-15.3). Within the intervention arm approximately half the screening was performed in general practice and half by the trial nurse.Conclusions: The nurse-led intervention was superior, resulting in an absolute increase of approximately 30% more people with SMI receiving screening for each CVD risk factor. The feasibility of the trial was confirmed in terms of CMHT recruitment and the intervention, but the response rate for outcome collection was disappointing; possibly a result of the cluster design. The trial was not large or long enough to detect changes in risk factors.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registration Number (ISRCTRN) 58625025

Developing new ways of measuring the quality and impact of ambulance service care: the PhOEBE mixed-methods research programme

Background Ambulance service quality measures have focused on response times and a small number of emergency conditions, such as cardiac arrest. These quality measures do not reflect the care for the wide range of problems that ambulance services respond to and the Prehospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme sought to address this. Objectives The aim was to develop new ways of measuring the impact of ambulance service care by reviewing and synthesising literature on prehospital ambulance outcome measures and using consensus methods to identify measures for further development; creating a data set linking routinely collected ambulance service, hospital and mortality data; and using the linked data to explore the development of case-mix adjustment models to assess differences or changes in processes and outcomes resulting from ambulance service care. Design A mixed-methods study using a systematic review and synthesis of performance and outcome measures reported in policy and research literature; qualitative interviews with ambulance service users; a three-stage consensus process to identify candidate indicators; the creation of a data set linking ambulance, hospital and mortality data; and statistical modelling of the linked data set to produce novel case-mix adjustment measures of ambulance service quality. Setting East Midlands and Yorkshire, England. Participants Ambulance services, patients, public, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policy-makers between 2011 and 2015. Interventions None. Main outcome measures Ambulance performance and quality measures. Data sources Ambulance call-and-dispatch and electronic patient report forms, Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency and inpatient data, and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Results Seventy-two candidate measures were generated from systematic reviews in four categories: (1) ambulance service operations (n = 14), (2) clinical management of patients (n = 20), (3) impact of care on patients (n = 9) and (4) time measures (n = 29). The most common operations measures were call triage accuracy; clinical management was adherence to care protocols, and for patient outcome it was survival measures. Excluding time measures, nine measures were highly prioritised by participants taking part in the consensus event, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to refine and prioritise measures and 20 measures scored ≥ 8/9 points, which indicated good consensus. Eighteen patient and public representatives attending a consensus workshop identified six measures as important: time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain score, calls correctly prioritised to appropriate levels of response, proportion of patients with a specific condition who are treated in accordance with established guidelines, and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. From this we developed six new potential indicators using the linked data set, of which five were constructed using case-mix-adjusted predictive models: (1) mean change in pain score; (2) proportion of serious emergency conditions correctly identified at the time of the 999 call; (3) response time (unadjusted); (4) proportion of decisions to leave a patient at scene that were potentially inappropriate; (5) proportion of patients transported to the emergency department by 999 emergency ambulance who did not require treatment or investigation(s); and (6) proportion of ambulance patients with a serious emergency condition who survive to admission, and to 7 days post admission. Two indicators (pain score and response times) did not need case-mix adjustment. Among the four adjusted indicators, we found that accuracy of call triage was 61%, rate of potentially inappropriate decisions to leave at home was 5–10%, unnecessary transport to hospital was 1.7–19.2% and survival to hospital admission was 89.5–96.4% depending on Clinical Commissioning Group area. We were unable to complete a fourth objective to test the indicators in use because of delays in obtaining data. An economic analysis using indicators (4) and (5) showed that incorrect decisions resulted in higher costs. Limitations Creation of a linked data set was complex and time-consuming and data quality was variable. Construction of the indicators was also complex and revealed the effects of other services on outcome, which limits comparisons between services. Conclusions We identified and prioritised, through consensus processes, a set of potential ambulance service quality measures that reflected preferences of services and users. Together, these encompass a broad range of domains relevant to the population using the emergency ambulance service. The quality measures can be used to compare ambulance services or regions or measure performance over time if there are improvements in mechanisms for linking data across services. Future work The new measures can be used to assess different dimensions of ambulance service delivery but current data challenges prohibit routine use. There are opportunities to improve data linkage processes and to further develop, validate and simplify these measures. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

“Should I stay or should I go now?” : A qualitative study of why UK doctors retire

Funding information Our thanks go to the University of Aberdeen Development Trust and the British Medical Association (Scotland) for funding this work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our thanks to all those doctors who participated in the study. Our thanks also to the BMA (Scotland) for distributing the invitation to take part in the study to their members. No patients or any members of the public were involved in this study.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprin

Evaluation of Health in Pregnancy grants in Scotland: a natural experiment using routine data

No abstract avialable