Katherine Checkland

An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

Effectiveness of Case Management for 'At Risk' Patients in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background An ageing population with multimorbidity is putting pressure on health systems. A popular method of managing this pressure is identification of patients in primary care ‘at-risk’ of hospitalisation, and delivering case management to improve outcomes and avoid admissions. However, the effectiveness of this model has not been subjected to rigorous quantitative synthesis. Methods and Findings We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of case management for ‘at-risk’ patients in primary care. Six bibliographic databases were searched using terms for ‘case management’, ‘primary care’, and a methodology filter (Cochrane EPOC group). Effectiveness compared to usual care was measured across a number of relevant outcomes: Health – self-assessed health status, mortality; Cost – total cost of care, healthcare utilisation (primary and non-specialist care and secondary care separately), and; Satisfaction – patient satisfaction. We conducted secondary subgroup analyses to assess whether effectiveness was moderated by the particular model of case management, context, and study design. A total of 15,327 titles and abstracts were screened, 36 unique studies were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in total cost, mortality, utilisation of primary or secondary care. A very small significant effect favouring case management was found for self-reported health status in the short-term (0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14). A small significant effect favouring case management was found for patient satisfaction in the short- (0.26, 0.16 to 0.36) and long-term (0.35, 0.04 to 0.66). Secondary subgroup analyses suggested the effectiveness of case management may be increased when delivered by a multidisciplinary team, when a social worker was involved, and when delivered in a setting rated as low in initial ‘strength’ of primary care. Conclusions This was the first meta-analytic review which examined the effects of case management on a wide range of outcomes and considered also the effects of key moderators. Current results do not support case management as an effective model, especially concerning reduction of secondary care use or total costs. We consider reasons for lack of effect and highlight key research questions for the future. Review Protocol The review protocol is available as part of the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42014010824).

Associations between Extending Access to Primary Care and Emergency Department Visits: A Difference-In-Differences Analysis

Background Health services across the world increasingly face pressures on the use of expensive hospital services. Better organisation and delivery of primary care has the potential to manage demand and reduce costs for hospital services, but routine primary care services are not open during evenings and weekends. Extended access (evening and weekend opening) is hypothesized to reduce pressure on hospital services from emergency department visits. However, the existing evidence-base is weak, largely focused on emergency out-of-hours services, and analysed using a before-and after-methodology without effective comparators. Methods and Findings Throughout 2014, 56 primary care practices (346,024 patients) in Greater Manchester, England, offered 7-day extended access, compared with 469 primary care practices (2,596,330 patients) providing routine access. Extended access included evening and weekend opening and served both urgent and routine appointments. To assess the effects of extended primary care access on hospital services, we apply a difference-in-differences analysis using hospital administrative data from 2011 to 2014. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match practices without extended access to practices with extended access. Differences in the change in “minor” patient-initiated emergency department visits per 1,000 population were compared between practices with and without extended access. Populations registered to primary care practices with extended access demonstrated a 26.4% relative reduction (compared to practices without extended access) in patient-initiated emergency department visits for “minor” problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to -5,866), and a 26.6% (95% CI -39.2% to -14.1%) relative reduction in costs of patient-initiated visits to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: -£767,976, -£1,130,767 to -£405,184). There was an insignificant relative reduction of 3.1% in total emergency department visits (95% CI -6.4% to 0.2%). Our results were robust to several sensitivity checks. A lack of detailed cost reporting of the running costs of extended access and an inability to capture health outcomes and other health service impacts constrain the study from assessing the full cost-effectiveness of extended access to primary care. Conclusions The study found that extending access was associated with a reduction in emergency department visits in the first 12 months. The results of the research have already informed the decision by National Health Service England to extend primary care access across Greater Manchester from 2016. However, further evidence is needed to understand whether extending primary care access is cost-effective and sustainable.

Views of NHS commissioners on commissioning support provision. Evidence from a qualitative study examining the early development of clinical commissioning groups in England

Objective The 2010 healthcare reform in England introduced primary care-led commissioning in the National Health Service (NHS) by establishing clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). A key factor for the success of the reform is the provision of excellent commissioning support services to CCGs. The Governments aim is to create a vibrant market of competing providers of such services (from both for-profit and not-for-profit sectors). Until this market develops, however, commissioning support units (CSUs) have been created from which CCGs are buying commissioning support functions. This study explored the attitudes of CCGs towards outsourcing commissioning support functions during the initial stage of the reform. Design The research took place between September 2011 and June 2012. We used a case study research design in eight CCGs, conducting in-depth interviews, observation of meetings and analysis of policy documents. Setting/participants We conducted 96 interviews and observed 146 meetings (a total of approximately 439 h). Results Many CCGs were reluctant to outsource core commissioning support functions (such as contracting) for fear of losing local knowledge and trusted relationships. Others were disappointed by the absence of choice and saw CSUs as monopolies and a recreation of the abolished PCTs. Many expressed doubts about the expectation that outsourcing of commissioning support functions will result in lower administrative costs. Conclusions Given the nature of healthcare commissioning, outsourcing vital commissioning support functions may not be the preferred option of CCGs. Considerations of high transaction costs, and the risk of fragmentation of services and loss of trusted relationships involved in short-term contracting, may lead most CCGs to decide to form long-term partnerships with commissioning support suppliers in the future. This option, however, limits competition by creating ‘network closure’ and calls into question the Governments intention to create a vibrant market of commissioning support provision.

Complexity in the new NHS: longitudinal case studies of CCGs in England.

Objective The reform in the English National Health Services (NHS) under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is unlike previous NHS reorganisations. The establishment of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) was intended to be ‘bottom up’ with no central blueprint. This paper sets out to offer evidence about how this process has played out in practice and examines the implications of the complexity and variation which emerged. Design Detailed case studies in CCGs across England, using interviews, observation and documentary analysis. Using realist framework, we unpacked the complexity of CCG structures. Setting/participants In phase 1 of the study (January 2011 to September 2012), we conducted 96 interviews, 439 h of observation in a wide variety of meetings, 2 online surveys and 38 follow-up telephone interviews. In phase 2 (April 2013 to March 2015), we conducted 42 interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and managers and observation of 48 different types of meetings. Results Our study has highlighted the complexity inherent in CCGs, arising out of the relatively permissive environment in which they developed. Not only are they very different from one another in size, but also in structure, functions between different bodies and the roles played by GPs. Conclusions The complexity and lack of uniformity of CCGs is important as it makes it difficult for those who must engage with CCGs to know who to approach at what level. This is of increasing importance as CCGs are moving towards greater integration across health and social care. Our study also suggests that there is little consensus as to what being a ‘membership’ organisation means and how it should operate. The lack of uniformity in CCG structure and lack of clarity over the meaning of ‘membership’ raises questions over accountability, which becomes of greater importance as CCG is taking over responsibility for primary care co-commissioning.

Integrated care: theory to practice

‘Integrated care’ is pitched as the solution to current health system challenges. In the literature, what integrated care actually involves is complex and contested. Multi-disciplinary team case management is frequently the primary focus of integrated care when implemented internationally. We examine the practical application of integrated care in the NHS in England to exemplify the prevalence of the case management focus. We look at the evidence for effectiveness of multi-disciplinary team case management, for the focus on high-risk groups and for integrated care more generally. We suggest realistic expectations of what integration of care alone can achieve and additional research questions.

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management: difference-in-differences analysis.

Objectives To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). Design Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individual-level results by risk score. Setting Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UKs National Health Service (NHS). Participants At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. Intervention Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. Direct and indirect outcome measures Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). Results At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient non-elective admissions (−0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; −1.17 to −0.09. ES: −0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. Conclusions The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

Engaging GPs in commissioning: realist evaluation of the early experiences of Clinical Commissioning Groups in the English NHS.

Objectives To explore the ‘added value’ that general practitioners (GPs) bring to commissioning in the English NHS. We describe the experience of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the context of previous clinically led commissioning policy initiatives. Methods Realist evaluation. We identified the programme theories underlying the claims made about GP ‘added value’ in commissioning from interviews with key informants. We tested these theories against observational data from four case study sites to explore whether and how these claims were borne out in practice. Results The complexity of CCG structures means CCGs are quite different from one another with different distributions of responsibilities between the various committees. This makes it difficult to compare CCGs with one another. Greater GP involvement was important but it was not clear where and how GPs could add most value. We identified some of the mechanisms and conditions which enable CCGs to maximize the ‘added value’ that GPs bring to commissioning. Conclusion To maximize the value of clinical input, CCGs need to invest time and effort in preparing those involved, ensuring that they systematically gather evidence about service gaps and problems from their members, and engaging members in debate about the future shape of services.

‘Like a Circle in a Spiral, Like a Wheel within a Wheel’: The Layers of Complexity and Challenge for Devolution of Health and Social Care in Greater Manchester

The inclusion of health and social care as part of Greater Manchester devolution took many by surprise. Health and social care practitioners and managers have been working together in differing ways across the conurbation for many years. The formalisation of this working in a set of new organisational structures brings both opportunities and challenges. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 created new organisations within the English National Health Service (NHS) and added greatly to the complexity of the health and care system. Since the 1990s, this system has been characterised by the split between purchasers and providers of care. The devolution proposals add an extra layer of organisational complexity and they rely heavily on collaboration and co-operation rather than competition. We explore areas of potential tension and difficulty focussing on: public participation in health and care devolution; the imperative to simultaneously compete and collaborate; and blurred lines of responsibility and accountability between new organisations.

When is a saving not a saving? The micro-politics of budgets and savings under practice-based commissioning

This article reports findings from a qualitative study of the implementation and outcomes of Practice-Based Commissioning (PBC) in the English National Health Service. Focusing on the local construction of ‘budgets’ and ‘savings’, it reports in detail the issues that arose in the study sites, and discusses the implications for the future development of PBC.