Impact of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas on mortality and length of hospital stay: difference-in-differences analysis

Objective: To investigate whether centralisation of acute stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England was associated with changes in mortality and length of hospital stay. Design: Analysis of difference-in-differences between regions with patient level data from the hospital episode statistics database linked to mortality data supplied by the Office for National Statistics. Setting: Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. Participants: 258 915 patients with stroke living in urban areas and admitted to hospital in January 2008 to March 2012. Interventions “Hub and spoke” model for acute stroke care. In London hyperacute care was provided to all patients with stroke. In Greater Manchester hyperacute care was provided to patients presenting within four hours of developing symptoms of stroke. Main outcome measures Mortality from any cause and at any place at 3, 30, and 90 days after hospital admission; length of hospital stay. Results: In London there was a significant decline in risk adjusted mortality at 3, 30, and 90 days after admission. At 90 days the absolute reduction was −1.1% (95% confidence interval −2.1 to −0.1; relative reduction 5%), indicating 168 fewer deaths (95% confidence interval 19 to 316) during the 21 month period after reconfiguration in London. In both areas there was a significant decline in risk adjusted length of hospital stay: −2.0 days in Greater Manchester (95% confidence interval −2.8 to −1.2; 9%) and −1.4 days in London (−2.3 to −0.5; 7%). Reductions in mortality and length of hospital stay were largely seen among patients with ischaemic stroke. Conclusions: A centralised model of acute stroke care, in which hyperacute care is provided to all patients with stroke across an entire metropolitan area, can reduce mortality and length of hospital stay

Lessons for major system change: centralization of stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to identify the factors influencing the selection of a model of acute stroke service centralization to create fewer high-volume specialist units in two metropolitan areas of England (London and Greater Manchester). It considers the reasons why services were more fully centralized in London than in Greater Manchester. METHODS: In both areas, we analysed 316 documents and conducted 45 interviews with people leading transformation, service user organizations, providers and commissioners. Inductive and deductive analyses were used to compare the processes underpinning change in each area, with reference to propositions for achieving major system change taken from a realist review of the existing literature (the Best framework), which we critique and develop further. RESULTS: In London, system leadership was used to overcome resistance to centralization and align stakeholders to implement a centralized service model. In Greater Manchester, programme leaders relied on achieving change by consensus and, lacking decision-making authority over providers, accommodated rather than challenged resistance by implementing a less radical transformation of services. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of system (top-down) and distributed (bottom-up) leadership is important in enabling change. System leadership provides the political authority required to coordinate stakeholders and to capitalize on clinical leadership by aligning it with transformation goals. Policy makers should examine how the structures of system authority, with performance management and financial levers, can be employed to coordinate transformation by aligning the disparate interests of providers and commissioners

Innovations in major system reconfiguration in England: a study of the effectiveness, acceptability and processes of implementation of two models of stroke care

Abstract Background Significant changes in provision of clinical care within the English National Health Service (NHS) have been discussed in recent years, with proposals to concentrate specialist services in fewer centres. Stroke is a major public health issue, accounting for over 10% of deaths in England and Wales, and much disability among survivors. Variations have been highlighted in stroke care, with many patients not receiving evidence-based care. To address these concerns, stroke services in London and Greater Manchester were reorganised, although different models were implemented. This study will analyse processes involved in making significant changes to stroke care services over a short time period, and the factors influencing these processes. We will examine whether the changes have delivered improvements in quality of care and patient outcomes; and, in light of this, whether the significant extra financial investment represented good value for money. Methods/design This study brings together quantitative data on ‘what works and at what cost?’ with qualitative data on ‘understanding implementation and sustainability’ to understand major system change in two large conurbations in England. Data on processes of care and their outcomes (e.g. morbidity, mortality, and cost) will be analysed to evidence services’ performance before and after reconfiguration. The evaluation draws on theories related to the dissemination and sustainability of innovations and the ‘social matrix’ underlying processes of innovation. We will conduct a series of case studies based on stakeholder interviews and documentary analysis. These will identify drivers for change, how the reconfigurations were governed, developed, and implemented, and how they influenced service quality. Discussion The research faces challenges due to: the different timings of the reconfigurations; the retrospective nature of the evaluation; and the current organisational turbulence in the English NHS. However, these issues reflect the realities of major systems change and its evaluation. The methods applied in the study have been selected to account for and learn from these complexities, and will provide useful lessons for future reconfigurations, both in stroke care and other specialties.</p

Effects of Centralizing Acute Stroke Services on Stroke Care Provision in Two Large Metropolitan Areas in England

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: In 2010, Greater Manchester and London centralized acute stroke care into hyperacute units (Greater Manchester=3, London=8), with additional units providing ongoing specialist stroke care nearer patients’ homes. Greater Manchester patients presenting within 4 hours of symptom onset were eligible for hyperacute unit admission; all London patients were eligible. Research indicates that postcentralization, only London’s stroke mortality fell significantly more than elsewhere in England. This article attempts to explain this difference by analyzing how centralization affects provision of evidence-based clinical interventions. METHODS—: Controlled before and after analysis was conducted, using national audit data covering Greater Manchester, London, and a noncentralized urban comparator (38 623 adult stroke patients, April 2008 to December 2012). Likelihood of receiving all interventions measured reliably in pre- and postcentralization audits (brain scan; stroke unit admission; receiving antiplatelet; physiotherapist, nutrition, and swallow assessments) was calculated, adjusting for age, sex, stroke-type, consciousness, and whether stroke occurred in-hospital. RESULTS—: Postcentralization, likelihood of receiving interventions increased in all areas. London patients were overall significantly more likely to receive interventions, for example, brain scan within 3 hours: Greater Manchester=65.2% (95% confidence interval=64.3–66.2); London=72.1% (71.4–72.8); comparator=55.5% (54.8–56.3). Hyperacute units were significantly more likely to provide interventions, but fewer Greater Manchester patients were admitted to these (Greater Manchester=39%; London=93%). Differences resulted from contrasting hyperacute unit referral criteria and how reliably they were followed. CONCLUSIONS—: Centralized systems admitting all stroke patients to hyperacute units, as in London, are significantly more likely to provide evidence-based clinical interventions. This may help explain previous research showing better outcomes associated with fully centralized models