Does capitation affect the delivery of oral healthcare and access to services? Evidence from a pilot contact in Northern Ireland

Abstract Background In May 2009, the Northern Ireland government introduced General Dental Services (GDS) contracts based on capitation in dental practices newly set up by a corporate dental provider to promote access to dental care in populations that had previously struggled to secure service provision. Dental service provision forms an important component of general health services for the population, but the implications of health system financing on care delivered and the financial cost of services has received relatively little attention in the research literature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the policy effect capitation payment in recently started corporate practices had on the delivery of primary oral healthcare in Northern Ireland and access to services. Methods We analysed the policy initiative in Northern Ireland as a natural experiment to find the impact on healthcare delivery of the newly set up corporate practices that use a prospective capitation system to remunerate primary care dentists. Data was collected from GDS claim forms submitted to the Business Services Organisation (BSO) between April 2011 and October 2014. Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) practices operating within a capitation system were matched to a control group, who were remunerated using a retrospective fee-for-service system. Results No evidence of patient selection was found in the HSCB practices set up by a corporate provider and operated under capitation. However, patients were less likely to visit the dentist and received less treatment when they did attend, compared to those belonging to the control group (Pâ <â 0.05). The extent of preventive activity offered and the patient payment charge revenue did not differ between the two practice groups. Conclusion Although remunerating NHS primary care dentists in newly set up corporate practices using a prospective capitation system managed costs within healthcare, there is evidence that this policy may have reduced access to care of registered patients

Getting messier with TIDieR: embracing context and complexity in intervention reporting

Abstract Background The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide was developed by an international team of experts to promote full and accurate description of trial interventions. It is now widely used in health research. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of using TIDieR outside of trials, in a range of applied health research contexts, and make recommendations on its usefulness in such settings. Main body We used the TIDieR template for intervention description in six applied health research projects. The six cases comprise a diverse sample in terms of clinical problems, population, settings, stage of intervention development and whether the intervention was led by researchers or the service deliverers. There was also variation in how the TIDieR description was produced in terms of contributors and time point in the project. Researchers involved in the six cases met in two workshops to identify issues and themes arising from their experience of using TIDieR. We identified four themes which capture the difficulties or complexities of using TIDieR in applied health research: (i) fidelity and adaptation: all aspects of an intervention can change over time; (ii) voice: the importance of clarity on whose voice the TIDieR description represents; (iii) communication beyond the immediate context: the usefulness of TIDieR for wider dissemination and sharing; (iv) the use of TIDieR as a research tool. Conclusion We found TIDieR to be a useful tool for applied research outside the context of clinical trials and we suggest four revisions or additions to the original TIDieR which would enable it to better capture these complexities in applied health research: An additional item, ‘voice’ conveys who was involved in preparing the TIDieR template, such as researchers, service users or service deliverers. An additional item, ‘stage of implementation’ conveys what stage the intervention has reached, using a continuum of implementation research suggested by the World Health Organisation. A new column, ‘modification’ reminds authors to describe modifications to any item in the checklist. An extension of the ‘how well’ item encourages researchers to describe how contextual factors affected intervention delivery

Implementing resources to support the diagnosis and management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) in primary care: A qualitative study

Abstract Background Previous research has highlighted that many GPs lack the confidence and knowledge to diagnose and manage people with CFS/ME. Following the development of an online training module for GPs, and an information pack and DVD for patients, this study explored the extent to which these resources can be implemented in routine primary care. Methods Semi structured qualitative interviews were completed with patients and GPs across North West England. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using open exploratory thematic coding. Following this thematic analysis, the authors conducted a further theory-driven analysis of the data guided by Normalisation Process Theory. Results When used in line with advice from the research team, the information resource and training were perceived as beneficial to both patients and GPs in the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME. However, 47 % of patients in this study did not receive the information pack from their GP. When the information pack was used, it was often incomplete, sent in the post, and GPs did not work with patients to discuss the materials. Only13 out of 21 practices completed the training module due to time pressures and the low priority placed on low prevalence, contentious, hard to manage conditions. When the module was completed, many GPs stated that it was not feasible to retain the key messages as they saw so few patients with the condition. Due to the complexity of the condition, GPs also believed that the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME should take place in a specialist care setting. Conclusion While barriers to the implementation of training and resources for CFS/ME remain, there is a need to support CFS/ME patients to access reliable, evidence based information outside primary care. Our findings suggest that future research should develop an online resource for patients to support self-management

Explaining outcomes in major system change: a qualitative study of implementing centralised acute stroke services in two large metropolitan regions in England

Abstract Background Implementing major system change in healthcare is not well understood. This gap may be addressed by analysing change in terms of interrelated components identified in the implementation literature, including decision to change, intervention selection, implementation approaches, implementation outcomes, and intervention outcomes. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of two cases of major system change: the centralisation of acute stroke services in Manchester and London, which were associated with significantly different implementation outcomes (fidelity to referral pathway) and intervention outcomes (provision of evidence-based care, patient mortality). We interviewed stakeholders at national, pan-regional, and service-levels (n = 125) and analysed 653 documents. Using a framework developed for this study from the implementation science literature, we examined factors influencing implementation approaches; how these approaches interacted with the models selected to influence implementation outcomes; and their relationship to intervention outcomes. Results London and Manchester’s differing implementation outcomes were influenced by the different service models selected and implementation approaches used. Fidelity to the referral pathway was higher in London, where a ‘simpler’, more inclusive model was used, implemented with a ‘big bang’ launch and ‘hands-on’ facilitation by stroke clinical networks. In contrast, a phased approach of a more complex pathway was used in Manchester, and the network acted more as a platform to share learning. Service development occurred more uniformly in London, where service specifications were linked to financial incentives, and achieving standards was a condition of service launch, in contrast to Manchester. ‘Hands-on’ network facilitation, in the form of dedicated project management support, contributed to achievement of these standards in London; such facilitation processes were less evident in Manchester. Conclusions Using acute stroke service centralisation in London and Manchester as an example, interaction between model selected and implementation approaches significantly influenced fidelity to the model. The contrasting implementation outcomes may have affected differences in provision of evidence-based care and patient mortality. The framework used in this analysis may support planning and evaluating major system changes, but would benefit from application in different healthcare contexts

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England:Survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals

BACKGROUND: The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n = 186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. RESULTS: We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS: This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services

Is telephone health coaching a useful population health strategy for supporting older people with multimorbidity? An evaluation of reach, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness using a ‘trial within a cohort’

Abstract Background Innovative ways of delivering care are needed to improve outcomes for older people with multimorbidity. Health coaching involves ‘a regular series of phone calls between patient and health professional to provide support and encouragement to promote healthy behaviours’. This intervention is promising, but evidence is insufficient to support a wider role in multimorbidity care. We evaluated health coaching in older people with multimorbidity. Methods We used the innovative ‘Trials within Cohorts’ design. A cohort was recruited, and a trial was conducted using a ‘patient-centred’ consent model. A randomly selected group within the cohort were offered the intervention and were analysed as the intervention group whether they accepted the offer or not. The intervention sought to improve the skills of patients with multimorbidity to deal with a range of long-term conditions, through health coaching, social prescribing and low-intensity support for low mood. Results We recruited 4377 older people, and 1306 met the eligibility criteria (two or more long-term conditions and moderate ‘patient activation’). We selected 504 for health coaching, and 41% consented. More than 80% of consenters received the defined ‘dose’ of 4+ sessions. In an intention-to-treat analysis, those selected for health coaching did not improve on any outcome (patient activation, quality of life, depression or self-care) compared to usual care. We examined health care utilisation using hospital administrative and self-report data. Patients selected for health coaching demonstrated lower levels of emergency care use, but an increase in the use of planned services and higher overall costs, as well as a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain. The incremental cost per QALY was £8049, with a 70–79% probability of being cost-effective at conventional levels of willingness to pay. Conclusions Health coaching did not lead to significant benefits on the primary measures of patient-reported outcome. This is likely related to relatively low levels of uptake amongst those selected for the intervention. Demonstrating effectiveness in this design is challenging, as it estimates the effect of being selected for treatment, regardless of whether treatment is adopted. We argue that the treatment effect estimated is appropriate for health coaching, a proactive model relevant to many patients in the community, not just those seeking care. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ( ISRCTN12286422 )