Insights from the clinical assurance of service reconfiguration in the NHS: the drivers of reconfiguration and the evidence that underpins it – a mixed-methods study

Distance travelled to hospital for emergency laparotomy and the effect of travel time on mortality: cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether distance and estimated travel time to hospital for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy is associated with postoperative mortality.

DESIGN

National cohort study using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.

SETTING

171 National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

22 772 adult patients undergoing emergency surgery on the gastrointestinal tract between 2013 and 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality from any cause and in any place at 30 and 90 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Median on-road distance between home and hospital was 8.4 km (IQR 4.7-16.7 km) with a median estimated travel time of 16 min. Median time from hospital admission to operating theatre was 12.7 hours. Older patients live on average further from hospital and patients from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation live on average less far away.We included estimated travel time as a continuous variable in multilevel logistic regression models adjusting for important confounders and found no evidence for an association with 30-day mortality (OR per 10 min of travel time=1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06, p=0.512) or 90-day mortality (OR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.97 to 1.06, p=0.472).The results were similar when we limited our analysis to the subgroup of 5386 patients undergoing the most urgent surgery. 30-day mortality: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, p=0.574) and 90-day mortality: OR=1.01 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.08, p=0.858).

CONCLUSIONS

In the UK NHS, estimated travel time between home and hospital was not a primary determinant of short-term mortality following emergency gastrointestinal surgery.

The drivers and impact of emergency care reconfiguration in Ireland: Results from a large mixed-methods research programme

Ireland, like many countries, has reconfigured emergency care in recent years towards a more centralised model. Although centralisation is presented as 'evidence-based', the relevance of this evidence is challenged by groups which hold values beyond those implicit in the literature. The Study of the Impact of Reconfiguration on Emergency and Urgent Care Networks (SIREN) programme was funded to evaluate the development and performance of emergency and urgent care systems in Ireland. SIREN found that the drivers of reconfiguration in Ireland are based on safety and efficiency claims which are highly contestable. Reconfiguration was not associated with improvements in safety or efficiency and may have exacerbated the growing capacity challenges for acute hospitals. These findings are consistent with UK research. Our study adds to an emerging literature on the interaction between a narrow technocratic approach to health system planning and the perspectives of the public and patients.

A sociology of public responses to hospital change and closure

The "problem" of public resistance to hospital closure is a recurring trope in health policy debates around the world. Recent papers have argued that when it comes to major change to hospitals, "the public" cannot be persuaded by clinical evidence, and that mechanisms of public involvement are ill-equipped to reconcile opposition with management desire for radical change. This paper presents data from in-depth qualitative case studies of three hospital change processes in Scotland's National Health Service, including interviews with 44 members of the public. Informed by sociological accounts of both hospitals and publics as heterogeneous, shifting entities, I explore how hospitals play meaningful roles within their communities. I identify community responses to change proposals which go beyond simple opposition, including evading, engaging with and acquiescing to changes. Explicating both hospitals and the publics they serve as complex social phenomena strengthens the case for policy and practice to prioritise dialogic processes of engagement. It also demonstrates the continuing value of careful, empirical research into public perspectives on contentious healthcare issues in the context of everyday life.

The international knowledge base for new care models relevant to primary care-led integrated models: a realist synthesis

Background

The Multispecialty Community Provider (MCP) model was introduced to the NHS as a primary care-led, community-based integrated care model to provide better quality, experience and value for local populations.

Objectives

The three main objectives were to (1) articulate the underlying programme theories for the MCP model of care; (2) identify sources of theoretical, empirical and practice evidence to test the programme theories; and (3) explain how mechanisms used in different contexts contribute to outcomes and process variables.

Design

There were three main phases: (1) identification of programme theories from logic models of MCP vanguards, prioritising key theories for investigation; (2) appraisal, extraction and analysis of evidence against a best-fit framework; and (3) realist reviews of prioritised theory components and maps of remaining theory components.

Main outcome measures

The quadruple aim outcomes addressed population health, cost-effectiveness, patient experience and staff experience.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases with forward- and backward-citation tracking, identifying research-based evidence and practice-derived evidence.

Review methods

A realist synthesis was used to identify, test and refine the following programme theory components: (1) community-based, co-ordinated care is more accessible; (2) place-based contracting and payment systems incentivise shared accountability; and (3) fostering relational behaviours builds resilience within communities.

Results

Delivery of a MCP model requires professional and service user engagement, which is dependent on building trust and empowerment. These are generated if values and incentives for new ways of working are aligned and there are opportunities for training and development. Together, these can facilitate accountability at the individual, community and system levels. The evidence base relating to these theory components was, for the most part, limited by initiatives that are relatively new or not formally evaluated. Support for the programme theory components varies, with moderate support for enhanced primary care and community involvement in care, and relatively weak support for new contracting models.

Strengths and limitations

The project benefited from a close relationship with national and local MCP leads, reflecting the value of the proximity of the research team to decision-makers. Our use of logic models to identify theories of change could present a relatively static position for what is a dynamic programme of change.

Conclusions

Multispecialty Community Providers can be described as complex adaptive systems (CASs) and, as such, connectivity, feedback loops, system learning and adaptation of CASs play a critical role in their design. Implementation can be further reinforced by paying attention to contextual factors that influence behaviour change, in order to support more integrated working.

Future work

A set of evidence-derived ‘key ingredients’ has been compiled to inform the design and delivery of future iterations of population health-based models of care. Suggested priorities for future research include the impact of enhanced primary care on the workforce, the effects of longer-term contracts on sustainability and capacity, the conditions needed for successful continuous improvement and learning, the role of carers in patient empowerment and how community participation might contribute to community resilience.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039552.

Funding

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

Perspectives on the underlying drivers of urgent and emergency care reconfiguration in Ireland

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing tendency to reconfigure acute hospital care towards a more centralised and specialised model, particularly for complex care conditions. Although centralisation is presented as "evidence-based", the relevant studies are often challenged by groups which hold perspectives and values beyond those implicit in the literature. This study investigated stakeholder perspectives on the rationale for the reconfiguration of urgent and emergency care in Ireland. Specifically, it considered the hypothesis that individuals from different stakeholder groups would endorse different positions in relation to the motivation for, and goals of, reconfiguration.

METHODS

Documentary analysis of policy documents was used to identify official justifications for change. Semi-structured interviews with 175 purposively sampled stakeholders explored their perspectives on the rationale for reconfiguration.

RESULTS

While there was some within-group variation, internal and external stakeholders generally vocalised different lines of argument. Clinicians and management in the internal stakeholder group proposed arguments in favour of reconfiguration based on efficiency and safety claims. External stakeholders, including hospital campaigners and local political representatives expressed arguments that focused on access to care. A "voter" argument, focused on the role of local politicians in determining the outcome of reconfiguration planning, was mentioned by both internal and external stakeholders, often in a critical fashion.

CONCLUSION

Our study adds to an emerging literature on the interaction between a technocratic approach to health system planning advocated by clinicians and health service managers, and the experiential "non-expert" claims of the public and patients.