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

Rationing in an Era of Multiple Tight Constraints: Is Cost-Utility Analysis Still Fit for Purpose?

Cost-utility analysis may not be sufficient to support reimbursement decisions when the assessed health intervention requires a large proportion of the healthcare budget or when the monetary healthcare budget is not the only resource constraint. Such cases include joint replacement, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions and settings where all resources are constrained (e.g. post-COVID-19 or in low/middle-income countries). Using literature on health technology assessment, rationing and reimbursement in healthcare, we identified seven alternative frameworks for simultaneous decisions about (dis)investment and proposed modifications to deal with multiple resource constraints. These frameworks comprised constrained optimisation; cost-effectiveness league table; 'step-in-the-right-direction' approach; heuristics based on effective gradients; weighted cost-effectiveness ratios; multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). We used numerical examples to demonstrate how five of these alternative frameworks would operate. The modified frameworks we propose could be used in local commissioning and/or health technology assessment to supplement standard cost-utility analysis for interventions that have large budget impact and/or are subject to additional constraints.

Optimising acute stroke pathways through flexible use of bed capacity: a computer modelling study

Background

Optimising capacity along clinical pathways is essential to avoid severe hospital pressure and help ensure best patient outcomes and financial sustainability. Yet, typical approaches, using only average arrival rate and average lengths of stay, are known to underestimate the number of beds required. This study investigates the extent to which averages-based estimates can be complemented by a robust assessment of additional ‘flex capacity’ requirements, to be used at times of peak demand.

Methods

The setting was a major one million resident healthcare system in England, moving towards a centralised stroke pathway. A computer simulation was developed for modelling patient flow along the proposed stroke pathway, accounting for variability in patient arrivals, lengths of stay, and the time taken for transfer processes. The primary outcome measure was flex capacity utilisation over the simulation period.

Results

For the hyper-acute, acute, and rehabilitation units respectively, flex capacities of 45%, 45%, and 36% above the averages-based calculation would be required to ensure that only 1% of stroke presentations find the hyper-acute unit full and have to wait. For each unit some amount of flex capacity would be required approximately 30%, 20%, and 18% of the time respectively.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the importance of appropriately capturing variability within capacity plans, and provides a practical and economical approach which can complement commonly-used averages-based methods. Results of this study have directly informed the healthcare system’s new configuration of stroke services.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08433-0.

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.

Increasing specialist intensity at weekends to improve outcomes for patients undergoing emergency hospital admission: the HiSLAC two-phase mixed-methods study

Background

NHS England’s 7-day services policy comprised 10 standards to improve access to quality health care across all days of the week. Six standards targeted hospital specialists on the assumption that their absence caused the higher mortality associated with weekend hospital admission: the ‘weekend effect’. The High-intensity Specialist-Led Acute Care (HiSLAC) collaboration investigated this using the implementation of 7-day services as a ‘natural experiment’.

Objectives

The objectives were to determine whether or not increasing specialist intensity at weekends improves outcomes for patients undergoing emergency hospital admission, and to explore mechanisms and cost-effectiveness.

Design

This was a two-phase mixed-methods observational study. Year 1 focused on developing the methodology. Years 2–5 included longitudinal research using quantitative and qualitative methods, and health economics.

Methods

A Bayesian systematic literature review from 2000 to 2017 quantified the weekend effect. Specialist intensity measured over 5 years used self-reported annual point prevalence surveys of all specialists in English acute hospital trusts, expressed as the weekend-to-weekday ratio of specialist hours per 10 emergency admissions. Hospital Episode Statistics from 2007 to 2018 provided trends in weekend-to-weekday mortality ratios. Mechanisms for the weekend effect were explored qualitatively through focus groups and on-site observations by qualitative researchers, and a two-epoch case record review across 20 trusts. Case-mix differences were examined in a single trust. Health economics modelling estimated costs and outcomes associated with increased specialist provision.

Results

Of 141 acute trusts, 115 submitted data to the survey, and 20 contributed 4000 case records for review and participated in qualitative research (involving interviews, and observations using elements of an ethnographic approach). Emergency department attendances and admissions have increased every year, outstripping the increase in specialist numbers; numbers of beds and lengths of stay have decreased. The reduction in mortality has plateaued; the proportion of patients dying after discharge from hospital has increased. Specialist hours increased between 2012/13 and 2017/18. Weekend specialist intensity is half that of weekdays, but there is no relationship with admission mortality. Patients admitted on weekends are sicker (they have more comorbid disease and more of them require palliative care); adjustment for severity of acute illness annuls the weekend effect. In-hospital care processes are slightly more efficient at weekends; care quality (errors, adverse events, global quality) is as good at weekends as on weekdays and has improved with time. Qualitative researcher assessments of hospital weekend quality concurred with case record reviewers at trust level. General practitioner referrals at weekends are one-third of those during weekdays and have declined further with time.

Limitations

Observational research, variable survey response rates and subjective assessments of care quality were compensated for by using a difference-in-difference analysis over time.

Conclusions

Hospital care is improving. The weekend effect is associated with factors in the community that precede hospital admission. Post-discharge mortality is increasing. Policy-makers should focus their efforts on improving acute and emergency care on a ‘whole-system’ 7-day approach that integrates social, community and secondary health care.

Future work

Future work should evaluate the role of doctors in hospital and community emergency care and investigate pathways to emergency admission and quality of care following hospital discharge.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness in surgery: concepts of cost-utility analysis explained

Economic evaluations are increasingly becoming part of the surgical evidence base. With health and research guidelines emphasizing both clinical and economic benefits, surgeons will need to consider the impact of economic evaluations in the future. It seems reasonable that surgical costs in the public healthcare sector should be justified by the benefits that clinical interventions offer. Thus, it is vital to understand the methodological differences, reported outcomes and limitations of economic evaluations pertinent to surgical practice as well. As terminology and concepts can be unfamiliar to surgeons, understanding results from these studies can seem difficult. This article aims to inform surgical readers of the processes involved in performing economic evaluations to determine and compare the cost-effectiveness of treatments. The various types of economic evaluations, their uses, design characteristics, model parameters, interpretation of outputs, uncertainty analyses and notable limitations are considered. Through a hypothetical clinical example that compares costs and effects of surgical versus medical treatment for cancer, key concepts in economic evaluations are considered.

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

Background

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.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to improve the quality of nursing care among immobile patients with stroke in China: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

While a nursing intervention program for immobile patients with stroke can improve clinic outcomes, less is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention program for immobile patients with stroke in China.

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pre-test/post-test (before and after) study was undertaken from a health care perspective.

SETTINGS

Participants were recruited from 25 hospitals among six provinces or municipal cities in eastern (Guangdong province, Zhejiang province, and Beijing municipal city), western (Sichuan province), and central (Henan province and Hubei province) China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7,653 immobile stroke patients were included in our sample. Patients in routine care settings were recruited from November 2015 to June 2016, and the recruitment of the intervention group patients was from November 2016 to July 2017.

METHODS

To adjust for potential bias from confounding variables, the 1:1 propensity score matching yielded matched pairs of 2,966 patients in the routine care group and 2,966 patients in the intervention group, with no significant differences in sociodemographic or clinical characteristics between two groups. All patients were followed-up 3 months after enrolment in the study. Total healthcare costs were extracted from the hospital information system, with the health outcome effectiveness of the intervention program measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) instrument and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a time horizon of 3 months.

RESULTS

Compared to routine care, the intervention program decreased the total costs of stroke patients by CN¥4,600 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [-7050, -2151]), while increasing quality-adjusted life year 0.009 (95% CI: [0.005, 0.013]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over 3 months was CN¥-517,011 per quality-adjusted life year (95% CI: [-1,111,442, -203,912]). Subgroup analysis reveals that both the health-related quality of life and cost effectiveness improved significantly for ischemic patients and tertiary hospitals patients while for hemorrhagic patients and non-tertiary hospital patients only the health-related quality of life improved significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this first cost-effectiveness analysis in immobile stroke patients provide evidence that an intervention program provided significant cost saving, but mainly in ischemic patients and tertiary hospital patients. Wider adoption of such programs may be a sensible approach to reducing the burden of stroke and for immobile patients more generally.

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

This article provides an educational review covering the consideration of conducting ‘value for money’ analyses as part of non-randomised study designs including service evaluations. These evaluations represent a vehicle for producing evidence such as value for money of a care intervention or service delivery model. Decision makers including charities and local and national governing bodies often rely on evidence from non-randomised data and service evaluations to inform their resource allocation decision-making. However, as randomised data obtained from randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing causation, the use of this alternative vehicle for producing an evidence base requires careful consideration. We refer to value for money analyses, but reflect on methods associated with economic evaluations as a form of analysis used to inform resource allocation decision-making alongside a finite budget. Not all forms of value for money analysis are considered a full economic evaluation with implications for the information provided to decision makers. The type of value for money analysis to be conducted requires considerations such as the outcome(s) of interest, study design, statistical methods to control for confounding and bias, and how to quantify and describe uncertainty and opportunity costs to decision makers in any resulting value for money estimates. Service evaluations as vehicles for producing evidence present different challenges to analysts than what is commonly associated with research, randomised controlled trials and health technology appraisals, requiring specific study design and analytic considerations. This educational review describes and discusses these considerations, as overlooking them could affect the information provided to decision makers who may make an ‘ill-informed’ decision based on ‘poor’ or ‘inaccurate’ information with long-term implications. We make direct comparisons between randomised controlled trials relative to non-randomised data as vehicles for assessing causation; given ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials have limitations. Although we use UK-based decision makers as examples, we reflect on the needs of decision makers internationally for evidence-based decision-making specific to resource allocation. We make recommendations based on the experiences of the authors in the UK, reflecting on the wide variety of methods available, used as documented in the empirical literature. These methods may not have been fully considered relevant to non-randomised study designs and/or service evaluations, but could improve and aid the analysis conducted to inform the relevant value for money decision problem.

A Cost Analysis of Haemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis for the Management of End-Stage Renal Failure At an Academic Hospital in Pretoria, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are commonly used treatments for the management of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The costs of managing these patients have grown in recent years with increasing rates of non-communicable diseases, which will adversely impact on national health budgets unless addressed. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the costs of ESRD within the public healthcare system in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the direct costs of HD and PD in South Africa from a healthcare provider's perspective.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study was undertaken at a leading public hospital in South Africa. A micro-costing approach was applied to estimate healthcare costs using 46 adult patients with ESRD who had been receiving HD and PD for at least 3 months.

RESULTS

The highest proportion of patients (35%) were aged 40-50 years. Patients aged 29-39 years were mostly on HD (28% vs. 21% on PD) while those aged 51-59 years mostly used PD (29% vs. 16% on HD). The average age of patients on HD and PD were 41 and 42 years, respectively. Fixed costs were the principal cost driver for HD ($16,231.45) while variable costs were the principal cost driver for PD (US$20,488.79). The annual cost of HD per patient (US$31,993.12) was higher than PD (US$25,282.00 per patient), even though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.816).

CONCLUSION

HD costs more than PD from the provider's perspective. These cost estimates may be useful for carrying out future cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses in South Africa.

Variation in quality of acute stroke care by day and time of admission: prospective cohort study of weekday and weekend centralised hyperacute stroke unit care and non-centralised services

OBJECTIVE

To investigate variations in quality of acute stroke care and outcomes by day and time of admission in London hyperacute stroke units compared with the rest of England.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study using anonymised patient-level data from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme.

SETTING

Acute stroke services in London hyperacute stroke units and the rest of England.

PARTICIPANTS

68 239 patients with a primary diagnosis of stroke admitted between January and December 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

Hub-and-spoke model for care of suspected acute stroke patients in London with performance standards designed to deliver uniform access to high-quality hyperacute stroke unit care across the week.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

16 indicators of quality of acute stroke care, mortality at 3 days after admission to the hospital, disability at the end of the inpatient spell, length of stay.

RESULTS

There was no variation in quality of care by day and time of admission to the hospital across the week in terms of stroke nursing assessment, brain scanning and thrombolysis in London hyperacute stroke units, nor was there variation in 3-day mortality or disability at hospital discharge (all p values>0.05). Other quality of care measures significantly varied by day and time of admission across the week in London (all p values<0.01). In the rest of England there was variation in all measures by day and time of admission across the week (all p values<0.01), except for mortality at 3 days (p value>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The London hyperacute stroke unit model achieved performance standards for 'front door' stroke care across the week. The same benefits were not achieved by other models of care in the rest of England. There was no weekend effect for mortality in London or the rest of the England. Other aspects of care were not constant across the week in London hyperacute stroke units, indicating some performance standards were perceived to be more important than others.

Preferences for centralised emergency medical services: discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

It is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery.

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital.

SETTING

North East England.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

People value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer.

Reducing the severity of stroke

Stroke remains one of the most important causes of death and disability worldwide. Effective prevention could reduce the burden of stroke dramatically. The management of stroke has undergone a revolution over the last few decades, particularly with the development of techniques for revascularisation of patients with ischaemic stroke. Advanced imaging able to identify potentially salvageable brain is further increasing the potential for effective acute treatment. However, the majority of stroke patients won’t benefit from these treatments and will need effective specialist stroke care and ongoing rehabilitation to overcome impairments and adapt to living with a disability. There are still many unanswered questions about the most effective way of delivering rehabilitation. Likewise, research into how to manage primary intracerebral haemorrhage has yet to transform care.

Evaluation of reconfigurations of acute stroke services in different regions of England and lessons for implementation: a mixed-methods study

Background

Centralising acute stroke services is an example of major system change (MSC). ‘Hub and spoke’ systems, consisting of a reduced number of services providing acute stroke care over the first 72 hours following a stroke (hubs), with a larger number of services providing care beyond this phase (spokes), have been proposed to improve care and outcomes.

Objective

To use formative evaluation methods to analyse reconfigurations of acute stroke services in different regions of England and to identify lessons that will help to guide future reconfigurations, by studying the following contrasting cases: (1) London (implemented 2010) – all patients eligible for Hyperacute Stroke Units (HASUs); patients admitted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; (2) Greater Manchester A (GMA) (2010) – only patients presenting within 4 hours are eligible for HASU treatment; one HASU operated 24/7, two operated from 07.00 to 19.00, Monday to Friday; (3) Greater Manchester B (GMB) (2015) – all patients eligible for HASU treatment (as in London); one HASU operated 24/7, two operated with admission extended to the hours of 07.00–23.00, Monday to Sunday; and (4) Midlands and East of England – planned 2012/13, but not implemented.

Design

Impact was studied through a controlled before-and-after design, analysing clinical outcomes, clinical interventions and cost-effectiveness. The development, implementation and sustainability of changes were studied through qualitative case studies, documentation analysis (n = 1091), stakeholder interviews (n = 325) and non-participant observations (n = 92; ≈210 hours). Theory-based framework was used to link qualitative findings on process of change with quantitative outcomes.

Results

Impact – the London centralisation performed significantly better than the rest of England (RoE) in terms of mortality [–1.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.1% to –0.1%], resulting in an estimated additional 96 lives saved per year beyond reductions observed in the RoE, length of stay (LOS) (–1.4 days, 95% –2.3 to –0.5 days) and delivering effective clinical interventions [e.g. arrival at a Stroke Unit (SU) within 4 hours of ‘clock start’ (when clock start refers to arrival at hospital for strokes occurring outside hospital or the appearance of symptoms for patients who are already in-patients at the time of stroke): London = 66.3% (95% CI 65.6% to 67.1%); comparator = 54.4% (95% CI 53.6% to 55.1%)]. Performance was sustained over 6 years. GMA performed significantly better than the RoE on LOS (–2.0 days, 95% CI –2.8 to –1.2 days) only. GMB (where 86% of patients were treated in HASU) performed significantly better than the RoE on LOS (–1.5 days, 95% CI –2.5 to –0.4 days) and clinical interventions [e.g. SU within 4 hours: GMB = 79.1% (95% CI 77.9% to 80.4%); comparator = 53.4% (95% CI 53.0% to 53.7%)] but not on mortality (–1.3%, 95% CI –2.7% to 0.01%; p = 0.05, accounting for reductions observed in RoE); however, there was a significant effect when examining GMB HASUs only (–1.8%, 95% CI –3.4% to –0.2%), resulting in an estimated additional 68 lives saved per year. All centralisations except GMB were cost-effective at 10 years, with a higher net monetary benefit than the RoE at a willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £20,000–30,000. Per 1000 patients at 10 years, London resulted in an additional 58 QALYs, GMA resulted in an additional 18 QALYs and GMB resulted in an additional 6 QALYs at costs of £1,014,363, –£470,848 and £719,948, respectively. GMB was cost-effective at 90 days. Despite concerns about the potential impact of increased travel times, patients and carers reported good experiences of centralised services; this relied on clear information at every stage. Planning change – combining top-down authority and bottom-up clinical leadership was important in co-ordinating multiple stakeholders to agree service models and overcome resistance. Implementation – minimising phases of change, use of data, service standards linked to financial incentives and active facilitation of changes by stroke networks was important. The 2013 reforms of the English NHS removed sources of top-down authority and facilitative capacity, preventing centralisation (Midlands and East of England) and delaying implementation (GMB). Greater Manchester’s Operational Delivery Network, developed to provide alternative network facilitation, and London’s continued use of standards suggested important facilitators of centralisation in a post-reform context.

Limitations

The main limitation of our quantitative analysis was that we were unable to control for stroke severity. In addition, findings may not apply to non-urban settings. Data on patients’ quality of life were unavailable nationally, clinical interventions measured changed over time and national participation in audits varied. Some qualitative analyses were retrospective, potentially influencing participant views.

Conclusions

Centralising acute stroke services can improve clinical outcomes and care provision. Factors related to the service model implemented, how change is implemented and the context in which it is implemented are influential in improvement. We recommend further analysis of how different types of leadership contribute to MSC, patient and carer experience during the implementation of change, the impact of change on further clinical outcomes (disability and QoL) and influence of severity of stroke on clinical outcomes. Finally, our findings should be assessed in relation to MSC implemented in other health-care specialties.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

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; P<0.01), indicating 6750 fewer bed days a year. The number of patients treated in a hyperacute stroke unit increased from 39% in 2010-12 to 86% in 2015/16. In London, the 90 day mortality rate was sustained (P>0.05), 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.