The effects of structure, process and outcome incentives on primary care referrals to a national prevention programme

Pay-for-Performance incentives for specialised services in England: a mixed methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

A Pay-for-Performance (P4P) programme, known as Prescribed Specialised Services Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (PSS CQUIN), was introduced for specialised services in the English NHS in 2013/2014. These services treat patients with rare and complex conditions. We evaluate the implementation of PSS CQUIN contracts between 2016/2017 and 2018/2019.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods evaluative approach. In the quantitative analysis, we used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate the effectiveness of ten PSS CQUIN schemes across a range of targeted outcomes. Potential selection bias was addressed using propensity score matching. We also estimated impacts on costs by scheme and financial year. In the qualitative analysis, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to gain insights into the complexities of contract design and programme implementation. Qualitative data analysis was based on the constant comparative method, inductively generating themes.

RESULTS

The ten PSS CQUIN schemes had limited impact on the targeted outcomes. A statistically significant improvement was found for only one scheme: in the clinical area of trauma, the incentive scheme increased the probability of being discharged from Adult Critical Care within four hours of being clinically ready by 7%. The limited impact may be due to the size of the incentive payments, the complexity of the schemes' design, and issues around ownership, contracting and flexibility.

CONCLUSION

The PSS CQUIN schemes had little or no impact on quality improvements in specialised services. Future P4P programmes in healthcare could benefit from lessons learnt from this study on incentive design and programme implementation.

Diabetes prevention at scale: Narrative review of findings and lessons from the DIPLOMA evaluation of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme in England

AIMS

The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) is a large-scale, England-wide behaviour change programme for people at high risk of progressing to type 2 diabetes. We summarise the findings of our six-year DIPLOMA evaluation of its implementation and impact and highlight insights for future programmes.

METHODS

Using qualitative interviews, document analysis, observation, surveys and large dataset analysis, eight interlinked work packages considered: equity of access; implementation; service delivery and fidelity; programme outcomes; comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in reducing diabetes incidence; and patient decision making and experience.

RESULTS

Delivery of the NHS DPP encountered barriers across many aspects of the programme, and we identified inequalities in terms of the areas, organisations and patient populations most likely to engage with the programme. There was some loss of fidelity at all stages from commissioning to participant understanding. Despite these challenges, there was evidence of significant reductions in diabetes incidence at individual and population levels. The programme was cost-effective even within a short time period.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the challenge of translating research evidence into routine NHS delivery at scale, our findings suggest that an individual-level approach to the prevention of type 2 diabetes in a 'high-risk' population was more effective than usual care. By embedding evaluation with programme delivery and working closely with the NHS DPP team, we provided actionable insights for improving communications with potential participants, supporting primary care referral, honing the delivery model with better provider relationships and more patient choice, increasing understanding of behaviour change techniques, and enriching the educational and health coaching content.

Evaluating the Short-Term Costs and Benefits of a Nationwide Diabetes Prevention Programme in England: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Prevention programmes typically incur short-term costs and uncertain long-term benefits. We use the National Health Service (NHS) England Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) to investigate whether behaviour change programmes may be cost-effective even within the short-term participation period.

METHODS

We analysed 384,611 referrals between June 2016 and March 2019. We estimated NHS costs using implementation costs and provider payments. We used linear regressions to relate utility changes to the number of sessions attended, based on responses to the five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) at baseline and final session for 18,959 participants. We then calculated the corresponding quality-adjusted life year (QALY) change for all 384,611 referrals by combining the estimated regression coefficients with the observed level of attendance, with individuals that did not attend any programme sessions being assumed to experience zero benefit. In secondary analysis, we added weight change, recorded for 18,105 participants to the regression and applied predicted values to all referrals with missing weight change values estimated using multiple imputation with chained equations. We then estimated the cost-per-QALY generated.

RESULTS

Average cost per referral was £119 (standard deviation: £118; 2020 price year, UK £ Sterling). Each session attended was associated with a 0.0042 increase in utility (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0025-0.0059). This generated 1,773 QALYs across all referrals (95% CI: 889-2,656). Cost-per-QALY was £24,929 (95% CI: £16,635-49,720) when implementation costs were excluded. Secondary analysis showed each session attended and kilogram of weight lost were associated with 0.0034 (95% CI: 0.0016-0.0051) and 0.0025 (95% CI: 0.0020-0.0031) increases in utility, respectively. These generated 1,542 QALYs, at a cost-per-QALY of £28,661 when implementation costs were excluded.

CONCLUSION

Participants experienced small utility gains from session attendance and weight loss during their programme participation. These benefits alone made this low-cost behaviour change programme potentially cost-effective in the short-term.

A qualitative evaluation of the national rollout of a diabetes prevention programme in England

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) was commissioned by NHS England in 2016 and rolled out in three 'waves' across the whole of England. It aims to help people with raised blood glucose levels reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes through behaviour change techniques (e.g., weight loss, dietary changes and exercise). An independent, longitudinal, mixed methods evaluation of the NHS DPP was undertaken. We report the findings from the implementation work package: a qualitative interview study with designated local leads, responsible for the local commissioning and implementation of the programme. The aim of the study was to explore how local implementation processes were enacted and adapted over time.

METHODS

We conducted a telephone interview study across two time-points. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews with local leads across 19 sampled case sites were undertaken between October 2019 and January 2020 and 13 interviews with local leads across 13 sampled case sites were conducted between July 2020 and August 2020. Interviews aimed to reflect on the experience of implementation and explore how things changed over time.

RESULTS

We identified four overarching themes to show how implementation was locally enacted and adapted across the sampled case sites: 1. Adapting to provider change; 2. Identification and referral; 3. Enhancing uptake in underserved populations; and 4. Digital and remote service options.

CONCLUSION

This paper reports how designated local leads, responsible for local implementation of the NHS DPP, adapted implementation efforts over the course of a changing national diabetes prevention programme, including how local leads adapted implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper highlights three main factors that influence implementation: the importance of facilitation, the ability (or not) to tailor interventions to local needs and the role of context in implementation.

Does recruiting patients to diabetes prevention programmes via primary care reinforce existing inequalities in care provision between general practices? A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Primary care plays a crucial role in identifying patients' needs and referring at-risk individuals to preventive services. However, well-established variations in care delivery may be replicated in this prevention activity.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether recruiting patients to the English NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme via primary care reinforces existing inequalities in care provision between practices, in terms of clinical quality, accessibility and resources.

METHODS

We generated annual practice-level counts of referrals across the first 4 years of the programme (June 2016 to March 2020). These were linked to 15 indicators of practice clinical quality, access and resources measured during 2018/19. We used random effects Poisson regressions to examine associations between referrals and these indicators, controlling for practice and population characteristics, for 6871 practices in England.

RESULTS

On average, practices made 3.72 referrals per 1000 population annually and rates varied substantially between practices. Referral rates were positively associated with the quality of clinical care provided. A 1 SD higher level of achievement on Quality and Outcomes Framework diabetes indicators was associated with an 11% (95% CI: 8% to 14%) higher referral rate. This positive association was consistent across all five clinical quality indicators. There was no association between referral rates and accessibility, overall payments or staffing. Associations between referrals and receiving different supplementary payments over the core contract were mixed, with 8%-11% lower referral rates for some payments but not for others.

CONCLUSION

Recruiting patients to diabetes prevention programmes via primary care reinforces existing inequalities between general practices in the clinical quality of care they provide. This leaves patients registered with practices providing lower quality clinical care even more disadvantaged. Providing additional support to lower quality practices or using alternative recruitment methods may be necessary to avoid differential engagement in prevention programmes from widening these variations and potential health inequalities further.

Population level impact of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme on incidence of type 2 diabetes in England: An observational study

BACKGROUND

The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) is the first nationwide type 2 diabetes prevention programme targeting people with prediabetes. It was rolled out across England from 2016 in three waves. We evaluate the population level impact of the NHS DPP on incidence rates of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We use data from the National Diabetes Audit, which records all individuals across England who have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes by 2019. We use difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the impact of the phased introduction of the DPP on type 2 diabetes incidence. We compare patients registered with the 3,282 general practices enrolled from 2016 (wave 1) and the 1,610 practices enrolled from 2017 (wave 2) to those registered with the 1,584 practices enrolled from 2018 (final wave).

FINDINGS

Incidence rates of type 2 diabetes in wave 1 practices in 2018 and 2019 were significantly lower than would have been expected in the absence of the DPP (difference-in-differences Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) = 0·938 (95% CI 0·905 to 0·972)). Incidence rates were also significantly lower than expected for wave 2 practices in 2019 (difference-in-differences IRR = 0·927 (95% CI 0·885 to 0·972)). These results remained consistent across several robustness checks.

INTERPRETATION

Introduction of the NHS DPP reduced population incidence of type 2 diabetes. Longer follow-up is required to explore whether these effects are maintained or if diabetes onset is delayed.

FUNDING

This research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (Health Services and Delivery Research, 16/48/07 - Evaluating the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP): the DIPLOMA research programme (Diabetes Prevention - Long Term Multimethod Assessment)). The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.