Katy Rothwell

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.

Feasibility of assessing the needs of stroke patients after six months using the GM-SAT

Objective: To investigate the feasibility of administering the Greater Manchester Stroke Assessment Tool (GM-SAT), a structured evidence-based needs assessment tool, in a community setting and its acceptability to stroke patients and their carers. Setting: Community stroke services. Subjects: One hundred and thirty-seven stroke patients at six months post hospital discharge with no communication or cognitive difficulties residing in their own homes. Intervention: Patients’ needs were assessed by information, advice and support (IAS) coordinators from the UK Stroke Association using the GM-SAT. Main measures: Number and nature of unmet needs identified and actions required to address these; patient/carer feedback; and IAS coordinator feedback. Results: The mean number of unmet needs identified was 3 (min 0, max 14; SD 2.5). The most frequently identified unmet needs related to fatigue (34.3%), memory, concentration and attention (25.5%), secondary prevention non-lifestyle (21.9%) and depression (19.0%). It was found that 50.4% of unmet needs could be addressed through the provision of information and advice. Patients/carers found the assessment process valuable and IAS coordinators found the GM-SAT easy to use. Conclusions: Results demonstrate that the GM-SAT is feasible to administer in the community using IAS coordinators and is acceptable to patients and their carers, as well as staff undertaking the assessments. Further research is needed to determine whether the application of the GM-SAT at six months improves outcomes for patients.

Facilitating large-scale implementation of evidence based health care: insider accounts from a co-operative inquiry

BackgroundFacilitators are known to be influential in the implementation of evidence-based health care (EBHC). However, little evidence exists on what it is that they do to support the implementation process. This research reports on how knowledge transfer associates (KTAs) working as part of the UK National Institute for Health Research ‘Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care’ for Greater Manchester (GM CLAHRC) facilitated the implementation of EBHC across several commissioning and provider health care agencies.MethodsA prospective co-operative inquiry with eight KTAs was carried out comprising of 11 regular group meetings where they reflected critically on their experiences. Twenty interviews were also conducted with other members of the GM CLAHRC Implementation Team to gain their perspectives of the KTAs facilitation role and process.ResultsThere were four phases to the facilitation of EBHC on a large scale: (1) Assisting with the decision on what EBHC to implement, in this phase, KTAs pulled together people and disparate strands of information to facilitate a decision on which EBHC should be implemented; (2) Planning of the implementation of EBHC, in which KTAs spent time gathering additional information and going between key people to plan the implementation; (3) Coordinating and implementing EBHC when KTAs recruited general practices and people for the implementation of EBHC; and (4) Evaluating the EBHC which required the KTAs to set up (new) systems to gather data for analysis. Over time, the KTAs demonstrated growing confidence and skills in aspects of facilitation: research, interpersonal communication, project management and change management skills.ConclusionThe findings provide prospective empirical data on the large scale implementation of EBHC in primary care and community based organisations focusing on resources and processes involved. Detailed evidence shows facilitation is context dependent and that ‘one size does not fits all’. Co-operative inquiry was a useful method to enhance KTAs learning. The evidence shows that facilitators need tailored support and education, during the process of implementation to provide them with a well-rounded skill-set. Our study was not designed to demonstrate how facilitators contribute to patient health outcomes thus further prospective research is required.

Improving the identification and management of chronic kidney disease in primary care: lessons from a staged improvement collaborative

Quality problem Undiagnosed chronic kidney disease (CKD) contributes to a high cost and care burden in secondary care. Uptake of evidence-based guidelines in primary care is inconsistent, resulting in variation in the detection and management of CKD. Initial assessment Routinely collected general practice data in one UK region suggested a CKD prevalence of 4.1%, compared with an estimated national prevalence of 8.5%. Of patients on CKD registers, ∼30% were estimated to have suboptimal management according to Public Health Observatory analyses. Choice of solution An evidence-based framework for implementation was developed. This informed the design of an improvement collaborative to work with a sample of 30 general practices. Implementation A two-phase collaborative was implemented between September 2009 and March 2012. Key elements of the intervention included learning events, improvement targets, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, benchmarking of audit data, facilitator support and staff time reimbursement. Evaluation Outcomes were evaluated against two indicators: number of patients with CKD on practice registers; percentage of patients achieving evidence-based blood pressure (BP) targets, as a marker for CKD care. In Phase 1, recorded prevalence of CKD in collaborative practices increased ∼2-fold more than that in comparator local practices; in Phase 2, this increased to 4-fold, indicating improved case identification. Management of BP according to guideline recommendations also improved. Lessons learned An improvement collaborative with tailored facilitation support appears to promote the uptake of evidence-based guidance on the identification and management of CKD in primary care. A controlled evaluation study is needed to rigorously evaluate the impact of this promising improvement intervention.

Access to general practice in England: time for a policy rethink.

Improving access to general practice is one of the current priorities of healthcare policy in England and offering patients timely access is central to this agenda. A £50 million ‘Challenge Fund’ to support pilot initiatives offering GP appointments earlier and later in the day was set up in 2013 and a further £400 million has now been pledged to expand this programme. British Prime Minister David Cameron has promised that patients will be able to see a GP 7 days a week from 8 am to 8 pm and his Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has outlined plans to recruit an additional 5000 GPs to make this possible.1,2 The Government believes that this policy will reduce admissions to accident and emergency (A&E) services.3 However, its approach is not based on any detailed evidence that there is a strong link between access to general practice and recourse to A&E.4 It also involves privileging a particular dimension of access to general practice over others. This article explores how policy came to be dominated by concerns about speed and convenience, and calls for a wider debate that incorporates other aspects of access. Access to general practice can be described as having three main components:5 If this definition is borne in mind, it would be logical to conclude that policy aimed at improving access would involve addressing these different dimensions of care …

Opportunities for better value wound care: a multiservice, cross-sectional survey of complex wounds and their care in a UK community population

Background Complex wounds impose a substantial health economic burden worldwide. As wound care is managed across multiple settings by a range of healthcare professionals with varying levels of expertise, the actual care delivered can vary considerably and result in the underuse of evidence-based interventions, the overuse of interventions supported by limited evidence and low value healthcare. Objectives To quantify the number, type and management of complex wounds being treated over a two-week period and to explore variations in care by comparing current practices in wound assessment, prevention and treatment. Design A multiservice cross-sectional survey. Setting This survey spanned eight community services within five Northern England NHS Trusts. Results The point prevalence of complex wounds in this community-based population was 16.4 per 10 000 (95% CI 15.9 to 17.0). Based on data from 3179 patients, antimicrobial dressings were being used as the primary dressing for 36% of patients with complex wounds. Forty per cent of people with leg ulcers either had not received the recommended Doppler-aided Ankle Brachial Pressure Index assessment or it was unclear whether a recording had been taken. Thirty-one per cent of patients whose most severe wound was a venous leg ulcer were not receiving compression therapy, and there was limited use of two-layer compression hosiery. Of patients with a pressure ulcer, 39% were not using a pressure-relieving cushion or mattress. Conclusions Marked variations were found in care, underuse of evidence-based practices and overuse of practices that are not supported by robust research evidence. Significant opportunities for delivering better value wound care therefore exist. Efforts should now focus on developing strategies to identify, assess and disinvest from products and practices supported by little or no evidence and enhance the uptake of those that are.

The policy work of piloting: Mobilising and managing conflict and ambiguity in the English NHS

In spite of their widespread use in policy making in the UK and elsewhere, there is a relatively sparse literature specifically devoted to policy pilots. Recent research on policy piloting has focused on the role of pilots in making policy work in accordance with national agendas. Taking this as a point of departure, the present paper develops the notion of pilots doing policy work. It does this by situating piloting within established theories of policy formulation and implementation, and illustrating using an empirical case. Our case is drawn from a qualitative policy ethnography of a local government pilot programme aiming to extend access to healthcare services. Our case explores the collective entrepreneurship of regional policy makers together with local pilot volunteers. We argue that pilots work to mobilise and manage the ambiguity and conflict associated with particular policy goals, and in their structure and design, shape action towards particular outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of the generative but managed role which piloting affords to local implementers.

Adding the past to the policy mix: an historical approach to the issue of access to general practice in England

Abstract Historical perspectives can be embedded into policy initiatives through a process of ‘past-proofing’—ensuring new policies take the study of the past into consideration. We describe how this was done in a project looking at patient access to general practice in the NHS. We argue that current preoccupations with timeliness which have led to the marginalisation of other dimensions of access are connected to a broader process of neo-liberal reform since the 1970s. This reflection can support a reframing of the terms of current debates on a major issue in British health care. It has wider implications for the policy relevance of history.

Implementing new care models: learning from the Greater Manchester demonstrator pilot experience

BackgroundCurrent health policy focuses on improving accessibility, increasing integration and shifting resources from hospitals to community and primary care. Initiatives aimed at achieving these policy aims have supported the implementation of various ‘new models of care’, including general practice offering ‘additional availability’ appointments during evenings and at weekends. In Greater Manchester, six ‘demonstrator sites’ were funded: four sites delivered additional availability appointments, other services included case management and rapid response. The aim of this paper is to explore the factors influencing the implementation of services within a programme designed to improve access to primary care. The paper consists of a qualitative process evaluation undertaken within provider organisations, including general practices, hospitals and care homes.MethodsSemi-structured interviews, with the data subjected to thematic analysis.ResultsNinety-one people participated in interviews. Six key factors were identified as important for the establishment and running of the demonstrators: information technology; information governance; workforce and organisational development; communications and engagement; supporting infrastructure; federations and alliances. These factors brought to light challenges in the attempt to provide new or modify existing services. Underpinning all factors was the issue of trust; there was consensus amongst our participants that trusting relationships, particularly between general practices, were vital for collaboration. It was also crucial that general practices trusted in the integrity of anyone external who was to work with the practice, particularly if they were to access data on the practice computer system. A dialogical approach was required, which enabled staff to see themselves as active rather than passive participants.ConclusionsThe research highlights various challenges presented by the context within which extended access is implemented. Trust was the fundamental underlying issue; there was consensus amongst participants that trusting relationships were vital for effective collaboration in primary care.