How organisations contribute to improving the quality of healthcare

Naomi Fulop and Angus Ramsay argue that we should focus more on how organisations and organisational leaders can contribute to improving the quality of healthcare

Patient, carer and public involvement in major system change in acute stroke services: The construction of value

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement is required where changes to care provided by the UK National Health Service are proposed. Yet involvement is characterized by ambiguity about its rationales, methods and impact. AIMS: To understand how patients and carers were involved in major system changes (MSCs) to the delivery of acute stroke care in 2 English cities, and what kinds of effects involvement was thought to produce. METHODS: Analysis of documents from both MSC projects, and retrospective in-depth interviews with 45 purposively selected individuals (providers, commissioners, third-sector employees) involved in the MSC. RESULTS: Involvement was enacted through consultation exercises; lay membership of governance structures; and elicitation of patient perspectives. Interviewees' views of involvement in these MSCs varied, reflecting different views of involvement per se, and of implicit quality criteria. The value of involvement lay not in its contribution to acute service redesign but in its facilitation of the changes developed by professionals. We propose 3 conceptual categories-agitation management, verification and substantiation-to identify types of process through which involvement was seen to facilitate system change. DISCUSSION: Involvement was seen to have strategic and intrinsic value. Its strategic value lay in facilitating the implementation of a model of care that aimed to deliver evidence-based care to all; its intrinsic value was in the idea of citizen participation in change processes as an end in its own right. The concept of value, rather than impact, may provide greater traction in analyses of contemporary involvement practices

Patient experience of centralised acute stroke care pathways

Background: In 2010, Greater Manchester (GM) and London centralized acute stroke care services into a reduced number of hyperacute stroke units, with local stroke units providing on‐going care nearer patients’ homes. / Objective: To explore the impact of centralized acute stroke care pathways on the experiences of patients. / Design: Qualitative interview study. Thematic analysis was undertaken, using deductive and inductive approaches. Final data analysis explored themes related to five chronological phases of the centralized stroke care pathway. / Setting and participants: Recruitment from 3 hospitals in GM (15 stroke patients/8 family members) and 4 in London (21 stroke patients/9 family members). / Results: Participants were impressed with emergency services and initial reception at hospital: disquiet about travelling further than a local hospital was allayed by clear explanations. Participants knew who was treating them and were involved in decisions. Difficulties for families visiting hospitals a distance from home were raised. Repatriation to local hospitals was not always timely, but no detrimental effects were reported. Discharge to the community was viewed less positively. / Discussion and conclusions: Patients on the centralized acute stroke care pathways reported many positive aspects of care: the centralization of care pathways can offer patients a good experience. Disadvantages of travelling further were perceived to be outweighed by the opportunity to receive the best quality care. This study highlights the necessity for all staff on a centralized care pathway to provide clear and accessible information to patients, in order to maximize their experience of care

How are patients with rare diseases and their carers in the UK impacted by the way care is coordinated? An exploratory qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is considered important for patients with rare conditions, yet research addressing the impact of care coordination is limited. This study aimed to explore how care coordination (or lack of) impacts on patients and carers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 patients and carers/parents in the UK, representing a range of rare conditions (including undiagnosed conditions). Transcripts were analysed thematically in an iterative process. RESULTS: Participants described a range of experiences and views in relation to care coordination. Reports of uncoordinated care emerged: appointments were uncoordinated, communication between key stakeholders was ineffective, patients and carers were required to coordinate their own care, and care was not coordinated to meet the changing needs of patients in different scenarios. As a result, participants experienced an additional burden and barriers/delays to accessing care. The impacts described by patients and carers, either attributed to or exacerbated by uncoordinated care, included: impact on physical health (including fatigue), financial impact (including loss of earnings and travel costs), and psychosocial impact (including disruption to school, work and emotional burden). Overall data highlight the importance of flexible care, which meets individual needs throughout patients'/carers' journeys. Specifically, study participants suggested that the impacts may be addressed by: having support from a professional to coordinate care, changing the approach of clinics and appointments (where they take place, which professionals/services are available and how they are scheduled), and improving communication through the use of technology, care plans, accessible points of contact and multi-disciplinary team working. CONCLUSION: This study provides further evidence of impacts of uncoordinated care; these may be complex and influenced by a number of factors. Approaches to coordination which improve access to care and lessen the time and burden placed on patients and carers may be particularly beneficial. Findings should influence future service developments (and the evaluation of such developments). This will be achieved, in the first instance, by informing the CONCORD Study in the UK

The potential role of cost-utility analysis in the decision to implement major system change in acute stroke services in metropolitan areas in England

BACKGROUND: The economic implications of major system change are an important component of the decision to implement health service reconfigurations. Little is known about how best to report the results of economic evaluations of major system change to inform decision-makers. Reconfiguration of acute stroke care in two metropolitan areas in England, namely London and Greater Manchester (GM), was used to analyse the economic implications of two different implementation strategies for major system change. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to calculate difference-in-differences in costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of two major system change strategies in stroke care in London and GM. Values in the model were based on patient level data from Hospital Episode Statistics, linked mortality data from the Office of National Statistics and data from two national stroke audits. Results were presented as net monetary benefit (NMB) and using Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to assess the costs and benefits of a hypothetical typical region in England with approximately 4000 strokes a year. RESULTS: In London, after 90 days, there were nine fewer deaths per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England (95% CI -24 to 6) at an additional cost of £770,027 per 1000 stroke patients admitted. There were two additional deaths (95% CI -19 to 23) in GM, with a total costs saving of £156,118 per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England. At a £30,000 willingness to pay the NMB was higher in London and GM than the rest of England over the same time period. The results of the PBMA suggest that a GM style reconfiguration could result in a total greater health benefit to a region. Implementation costs were £136 per patient in London and £75 in GM. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of major system change in acute stroke care may result in a net health benefit to a region, even one functioning within a fixed budget. The choice of what model of stroke reconfiguration to implement may depend on the relative importance of clinical versus cost outcomes

Temporal variations in quality of acute stroke care and outcomes in London hyperacute stroke units: a mixed-methods study

This is the final version. Available from the NIHR Journals Library via the DOI in this recordBackground Seven-day working in hospitals is a current priority of international health research and policy. Previous research has shown variability in delivering evidence-based clinical interventions across different times of the day and week. We aimed to identify factors influencing such variations in London hyperacute stroke units. Objectives To investigate variations in quality of acute stroke care and outcomes by day and time of admission in London hyperacute stroke units, and to identify factors influencing such variations. Design This was a prospective cohort study using anonymised patient-level data from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. Factors influencing variations in care and outcomes were studied through interview and observation data. Setting The setting was acute stroke services in London hyperacute stroke units. Participants A total of 7094 patients with a primary diagnosis of stroke took part. We interviewed hyperacute stroke unit staff (n = 76), including doctors, nurses, therapists and administrators, and 31 patients and carers. We also conducted non-participant observations of delivery of care at different times of the day and week (n = 45, ≈102 hours). Intervention Hub-and-spoke model for care of suspected acute stroke patients in London with performance standards was designed to deliver uniform access to high-quality hyperacute stroke unit care across the week. Main outcome measures Indicators of quality of acute stroke care, mortality at 3 days after admission, disability at the end of the inpatient spell and length of stay. Data sources Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme data for all patients in London hyperacute stroke units with a primary diagnosis of stroke between 1 January and 31 December 2014, and nurse staffing data for all eight London hyperacute stroke units for the same period. Results We found no variation in quality of care by day and time of admission across the week in terms of stroke nursing assessment, brain scanning and thrombolysis in London hyperacute stroke units, nor in 3-day mortality nor disability at hospital discharge. Other quality-of-care measures significantly varied by day and time of admission. Quality of care was better if the nurse in charge was at a higher band and/or there were more nurses on duty. Staff deliver ‘front-door’ interventions consistently by taking on additional responsibilities out of hours, creating continuities between day and night, building trusting relationships and prioritising ‘front-door’ interventions. Limitations We were unable to measure long-term outcomes as our request to the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme, the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and NHS Digital for Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme data linked with patient mortality status was not fulfilled. Conclusions Organisational factors influence 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7), provision of stroke care, creating temporal patterns of provision reflected in patient outcomes, including mortality, length of stay and functional independence. Future work Further research would help to explore 24/7 stroke systems in other contexts. We need a clearer understanding of variations by looking at absolute time intervals, rather than achievement of targets. Research is needed with longer-term mortality and modified Rankin Scale data, and a more meaningful range of outcomes.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

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

Impact and sustainability of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics and stroke national audit data

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether further centralisation of acute stroke services in Greater Manchester in 2015 was associated with changes in outcomes and whether the effects of centralisation of acute stroke services in London in 2010 were sustained. DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of patient level data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database linked to mortality data from the Office for National Statistics, and the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). SETTING: Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. PARTICIPANTS: 509 182 stroke patients in HES living in urban areas admitted between January 2008 and March 2016; 218 120 stroke patients in SSNAP between April 2013 and March 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Hub and spoke models for acute stroke care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality at 90 days after hospital admission; length of acute hospital stay; treatment in a hyperacute stroke unit; 19 evidence based clinical interventions. RESULTS: In Greater Manchester, borderline evidence suggested that risk adjusted mortality at 90 days declined overall; a significant decline in mortality was seen among patients treated at a hyperacute stroke unit (difference-in-differences -1.8% (95% confidence interval -3.4 to -0.2)), indicating 69 fewer deaths per year. A significant decline was seen in risk adjusted length of acute hospital stay overall (-1.5 (-2.5 to -0.4) days; P0.05), length of hospital stay declined (P<0.01), and more than 90% of patients were treated in a hyperacute stroke unit. Achievement of evidence based clinical interventions generally remained constant or improved in both areas. CONCLUSIONS: Centralised models of acute stroke care, in which all stroke patients receive hyperacute care, can reduce mortality and length of acute hospital stay and improve provision of evidence based clinical interventions. Effects can be sustained over time

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 four hours of symptom onset were eligible for hyperacute unit admission; all London patients were eligible. Research indicates that, post-centralization, only London’s stroke mortality fell significantly more than elsewhere in England. This paper 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 non-centralized urban comparator (38,623 adult stroke patients, April 2008-December 2012). Likelihood of receiving all interventions measured reliably in pre- and post-centralization 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 Post-centralization, likelihood of receiving interventions increased in all areas. London patients were overall significantly more likely to receive interventions, e.g. brain scan within three 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 model