Centre variation in home dialysis uptake: A survey of kidney centre practice in relation to home dialysis organisation and delivery in England

Background: Disparities in home dialysis uptake across England suggest inequity and unexplained variation in access. We surveyed staff at all English kidney centres to identify patterns in service organisation/delivery and explore correlations with home therapy uptake, as part of a larger study (‘Inter-CEPt’), which aims to identify potentially modifiable factors to address observed variations. Methods: Between June and September 2022, staff working at English kidney centres were surveyed and individual responses combined into one centre-level response per question using predetermined data aggregation rules. Descriptive analysis described centre practices and their correlation with home dialysis uptake (proportion of new home dialysis starters) using 2019 UK Renal Registry 12-month home dialysis incidence data. Results: In total, 180 responses were received (50/51 centres, 98.0%). Despite varied organisation of home dialysis services, most components of service delivery and practice had minimal or weak correlations with home dialysis uptake apart from offering assisted peritoneal dialysis and ‘promoting flexible decision-making about dialysis modality’. Moderate to strong correlations were identified between home dialysis uptake and centres reporting supportive clinical leadership (correlation 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.05–0.55), an organisational culture that values trying new initiatives (0.57, 95% CI: 0.34–0.73); support for reflective practice (0.38, 95% CI: 0.11–0.60), facilitating research engagement (0.39, 95% CI: 0.13–0.61) and promoting continuous quality improvement (0.29, 95% CI: 0.01–0.53). Conclusions: Uptake of home dialysis is likely to be driven by organisational culture, leadership and staff attitudes, which provide a supportive clinical environment within which specific components of service organisation and delivery can be effective

Implementing world class commissioning competencies

Background: The world class commissioning (WCC) programme was introduced in the English NHS in 2007 to develop primary care trust (PCT) commissioning of health services. There has been limited evaluation of health commissioning initiatives over the years and in particular little is known about how commissioners interpret and implement initiatives and guidance intended to strengthen commissioning. This research explores the development and implementation of WCC and draws implications for future commissioning arrangements.Methods: This research draws on interviews with key informants (n = 6) and a literature review to analyse the aims of, and stimulus for, WCC. In-depth interviews (n = 38) were conducted in three PCTs in the north of England in 2009 to analyse the interpretation and implementation of WCC.Results: The aims and rationale of WCC, in particular, the specification of commissioning skills and the aspirations to improve health outcomes, were largely welcomed and supported by interviewees. However, the implementation of WCC posed a number of challenges, including: availability of resources and knowledge; lack of a supportive organizational culture and networks; and the dominance of central government control.Conclusions: The findings have implications for emerging clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in the English NHS. Specifically, the research highlights the need for a system-wide approach to improving commissioning, including appropriately aligned policy and objectives underpinned by a co-ordinated and supportive organizational culture

Priority setting and equity in COVID-19 pandemic plans: a comparative analysis of 18 African countries

riority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries’ pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the country’s economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery