Maria Goddard

Equity of access to health care services: : Theory and evidence from the UK

The pursuit of equity of access to health care is a central objective of many health care systems. This paper first sets out a general theoretical framework within which equity of access can be examined. It then applies the framework by examining the extent to which research evidence has been able to detect systematic inequities of access in UK, where equity of access has been a central focus in the National Health Service since its inception in 1948. Inequity between socio-economic groups is used as an illustrative example, and the extent of inequity of access experienced is explored in each of five service areas: general practitioner consultations; acute hospital care; mental health services; preventative medicine and health promotion; and long-term health care. The paper concludes that there appear to be important inequities in access to some types of health care in the UK, but that the evidence is often methodologically inadequate, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. In particular, it is difficult to establish the causes of inequities which in turn limits the scope for recommending appropriate policy to reduce inequities of access. The theoretical framework and the lessons learned from the UK are of direct relevance to researchers from other countries seeking to examine equity of access in a wide variety of institutional settings.

Measuring appropriate use of acute beds A systematic review of methods and results

A systematic review of the methods used to assess appropriateness of acute bed use and the evidence on the scale of inappropriate use in different patient groups is presented. Issues of generalisability of the findings are also addressed. Criteria based tools are the accepted way of measuring inappropriate days of stay and admissions, although opinion based classification is very common. While a number of tools exist, few have been adequately tested for reliability and validity. The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) is the most commonly used tool, and has been tested more widely. It appears to be both reliable and valid. An estimated 29% of admissions to acute psychiatric may be inappropriate. Regarding days of care after admission, between 24 and 58% of stays were not judged to be appropriate for continued stay on an acute ward. The need for continued acute psychiatric care may become lower as patients experience continued stay in the acute setting. A lack of housing and community support was the most commonly cited reason preventing discharge. Rates of inappropriate use appear to be higher for older patients than for the general population. Wide variation in rates of inappropriate days of stay was found, but it may be safe to assume that inappropriate use is greater than 20% across a wide variety of settings. Reasons for older patients to remain in an acute hospital bed after medically necessary are typically moderate nursing care needs (i.e. long-term care). The estimates of inappropriate use in other groups was found to be highly variable. Before definitive conclusions on the inappropriate use of acute beds can be made, future research needs to take into account the methodological problems discussed here.

Performance management and Operational Research: a marriage made in heaven?

This paper sets out a simple framework with which to examine the performance management process. It examines the organizational context within which performance management is undertaken, and notes that it becomes most important within hierarchical organizations that allow considerable autonomy amongst devolved units. The paper argues that performance management should embrace four broad functions: formulation of strategy; development of performance measurement instruments; interpreting such measures; and encouraging appropriate organizational responses to performance information. The paper notes that operational research has made significant contributions to all four functions, and suggests that the performance management movement offers enormous possibilities for OR.

How robust are hospital ranks based on composite performance measures

Background:Composite indices of healthcare performance are an aggregation of underlying individual performance measures. They are increasingly being used to rank healthcare organizations. Although composite indicators present the “big picture” in a way that is easy to interpret, misleading conclusions may be drawn if attention is not paid to key methodological issues in their construction. Objectives:We examine variability in performance measures in the context of the construction and use of composite measures. We illustrate how variability in the underlying data and the resulting composite may undermine the robustness of performance measures in health care. We also illustrate how variation in the methodological rules applied to aggregate the individual indicators can have an important impact on composite scores. Methods:We use data for 117 English acute hospitals to illustrate the generic methodological issues. The variance in performance measures is partitioned into “controllable” and “uncontrollable” elements. We create a composite index from the underlying performance indicators and use Monte Carlo simulations to examine the robustness of the composite. Results:Random variation beyond the control of organizations gives rise to considerable uncertainty in hospital scores. Composites are also sensitive to changes made to the weighting system and to the aggregation rules. Some hospitals can jump almost half of the league table as a result of subtle changes. Conclusions:Great care is warranted in interpreting the results of composite performance measures. Suggestions for their future development are made.

Priority setting in health a political economy perspective

Most countries face high demands on their health care systems and have limited resources with which to meet them. Priority setting seeks to address these problems by proposing rules to decide which groups of patients or disease areas should secure favoured access to limited health care resources. The economic approach towards priority setting, particularly in the form of cost-effectiveness analysis, is commonly advocated. However, despite many decades of refinement of the technical and methodological issues arising from the use of economic evaluation in priority setting, decision makers continue to diverge frequently from the principles of economic evaluation. Our approach in this paper is to highlight the potential contribution of models of political economy to understanding what constitutes rational behaviour when agents operate within political and institutional constraints. We argue that there may be potentially greater benefits to be gained from exploration and analysis of priority setting using models based on concepts such as median voter and competing interest groups, than from further efforts to refine the techniques of economic evaluation.

How Do Performance Indicators Add Up? An Examination of Composite Indicators in Public Services

Composite indicators are an aggregation of underlying performance indicators into a single index and have been used widely in the public sector to create league tables. This article investigates the degree to which composite measures are an appropriate metric for measuring performance. The authors illustrate the degree of uncertainty in the construction of composites and how rankings are sensitive to the way in which the performance indicators are aggregated. The article highlights the issues which need to be considered in the development and use of composite indicators for performance management purposes.

Impact of published clinical outcomes data: case study in NHS hospital trusts

Abstract Objective: To examine the impact of the publication of clinical outcomes data on NHS Trusts in Scotland to inform the development of similar schemes elsewhere. Design: Case studies including semistructured interviews and a review of background statistics. Setting: Eight Scottish NHS acute trusts. Participants: 48 trust staff comprising chief executives, medical directors, stroke consultants, breast cancer consultants, nurse managers, and junior doctors. Main outcome measures: Staff views on the benefits and drawbacks of clinical outcome indicators provided by the clinical resource and audit group (CRAG) and perceptions of the impact of these data on clinical practice and continuous improvement of quality. Results: The CRAG indicators had a low profile in the trusts and were rarely cited as informing internal quality improvement or used externally to identify best practice. The indicators were mainly used to support applications for further funding and service development. The poor effect was attributable to a lack of professional belief in the indicators, arising from perceived problems around quality of data and time lag between collection and presentation of data; limited dissemination; weak incentives to take action; a predilection for process rather than outcome indicators; and a belief that informal information is often more useful than quantitative data in the assessment of clinical performance. Conclusions: Those responsible for developing clinical indicator programmes should develop robust datasets. They should also encourage a working environment and incentives such that these data are used to improve continuously. What is already known on this topic Current policy on performance assessment in England and Wales places a great deal of emphasis on the collection and dissemination of clinical information Dissemination of clinical outcome data has had limited impact on the behaviour of provider organisations in the United States What this paper adds Research in Scottish trusts suggests that clinical indicators are rarely used to stimulate quality improvement or share good practice The reasons for low impact include internal factors relating to the properties of the indicators and external factors within the organisational environment in which the data are used

Where did all the GPs go? Increasing supply and geographical equity in England and Scotland.

Objectives To examine the effect on geographical equity of increases in the total supply of general practitioners (GPs) and the ending of entry restrictions in 2002 and to explore the factors associated with the distribution of GPs across England. Methods Calculation of Gini coefficients to measure geographical equity in GPs per 100,000 population in England and Scotland. Multiple regression of GPs per capita and change in GPs per capita on demographics, morbidity, deprivation and measures of amenity in English Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). Results Equity in England rose between 1974 and 1994 but then decreased, and in 2006 it was below the 1974 level. After 2002, England had a greater percentage increase in GP supply than Scotland and a smaller increase in inequity. The level of GP per capita supply in 2006 was positively correlated with morbidity and PCT amenity, and negatively correlated with unemployment and poor air quality. The increase in per capita supply between 2002 and 2006 was not significantly associated with morbidity, deprivation or amenities. Conclusions Reducing geographical inequity in the provision of GPs requires targeted area level policies.

How a universal health system reduces inequalities: lessons from England

Background Provision of universal coverage is essential for achieving equity in healthcare, but inequalities still exist in universal healthcare systems. Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, which has provided universal coverage since 1948, made sustained efforts to reduce health inequalities by strengthening primary care. We provide the first comprehensive assessment of trends in socioeconomic inequalities of primary care access, quality and outcomes during this period. Methods Whole-population small area longitudinal study based on 32 482 neighbourhoods of approximately 1500 people in England from 2004/2005 to 2011/2012. We measured slope indices of inequality in four indicators: (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) preventable emergency hospital admissions and (4) mortality from conditions considered amenable to healthcare. Results Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, there were larger absolute improvements on all indicators in more-deprived neighbourhoods. The modelled gap between the most-deprived and least-deprived neighbourhoods in England decreased by: 193 patients per family doctor (95% CI 173 to 213), 3.29 percentage points of primary care quality (3.13 to 3.45), 0.42 preventable hospitalisations per 1000 people (0.29 to 0.55) and 0.23 amenable deaths per 1000 people (0.15 to 0.31). By 2011/2012, inequalities in primary care supply and quality were almost eliminated, but socioeconomic inequality was still associated with 158 396 preventable hospitalisations and 37 983 deaths amenable to healthcare. Conclusions Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the NHS succeeded in substantially reducing socioeconomic inequalities in primary care access and quality, but made only modest reductions in healthcare outcome inequalities.

Integrating funds for health and social care: an evidence review

Objectives Integrated funds for health and social care are one possible way of improving care for people with complex care requirements. If integrated funds facilitate coordinated care, this could support improvements in patient experience, and health and social care outcomes, reduce avoidable hospital admissions and delayed discharges, and so reduce costs. In this article, we examine whether this potential has been realized in practice. Methods We propose a framework based on agency theory for understanding the role that integrated funding can play in promoting coordinated care, and review the evidence to see whether the expected effects are realized in practice. We searched eight electronic databases and relevant websites, and checked reference lists of reviews and empirical studies. We extracted data on the types of funding integration used by schemes, their benefits and costs (including unintended effects), and the barriers to implementation. We interpreted our findings with reference to our framework. Results The review included 38 schemes from eight countries. Most of the randomized evidence came from Australia, with nonrandomized comparative evidence available from Australia, Canada, England, Sweden and the US. None of the comparative evidence isolated the effect of integrated funding; instead, studies assessed the effects of ‘integrated financing plus integrated care’ (i.e. ‘integration’) relative to usual care. Most schemes (24/38) assessed health outcomes, of which over half found no significant impact on health. The impact of integration on secondary care costs or use was assessed in 34 schemes. In 11 schemes, integration had no significant effect on secondary care costs or utilisation. Only three schemes reported significantly lower secondary care use compared with usual care. In the remaining 19 schemes, the evidence was mixed or unclear. Some schemes achieved short-term reductions in delayed discharges, but there was anecdotal evidence of unintended consequences such as premature hospital discharge and heightened risk of readmission. No scheme achieved a sustained reduction in hospital use. The primary barrier was the difficulty of implementing financial integration, despite the existence of statutory and regulatory support. Even where funds were successfully pooled, budget holders’ control over access to services remained limited. Barriers in the form of differences in performance frameworks, priorities and governance were prominent amongst the UK schemes, whereas difficulties in linking different information systems were more widespread. Despite these barriers, many schemes – including those that failed to improve health or reduce costs – reported that access to care had improved. Some of these schemes revealed substantial levels of unmet need and so total costs increased. Conclusions It is often assumed in policy that integrating funding will promote integrated care, and lead to better health outcomes and lower costs. Both our agency theory-based framework and the evidence indicate that the link is likely to be weak. Integrated care may uncover unmet need. Resolving this can benefit both individuals and society, but total care costs are likely to rise. Provided that integration delivers improvements in quality of life, even with additional costs, it may, nonetheless, offer value for money.