Simon Turner

Impact of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas on mortality and length of hospital stay: difference-in-differences analysis

Objective To investigate whether centralisation of acute stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England was associated with changes in mortality and length of hospital stay. Design Analysis of difference-in-differences between regions with patient level data from the hospital episode statistics database linked to mortality data supplied by the Office for National Statistics. Setting Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. Participants 258 915 patients with stroke living in urban areas and admitted to hospital in January 2008 to March 2012. Interventions “Hub and spoke” model for acute stroke care. In London hyperacute care was provided to all patients with stroke. In Greater Manchester hyperacute care was provided to patients presenting within four hours of developing symptoms of stroke. Main outcome measures Mortality from any cause and at any place at 3, 30, and 90 days after hospital admission; length of hospital stay. Results In London there was a significant decline in risk adjusted mortality at 3, 30, and 90 days after admission. At 90 days the absolute reduction was −1.1% (95% confidence interval −2.1 to −0.1; relative reduction 5%), indicating 168 fewer deaths (95% confidence interval 19 to 316) during the 21 month period after reconfiguration in London. In both areas there was a significant decline in risk adjusted length of hospital stay: −2.0 days in Greater Manchester (95% confidence interval −2.8 to −1.2; 9%) and −1.4 days in London (−2.3 to −0.5; 7%). Reductions in mortality and length of hospital stay were largely seen among patients with ischaemic stroke. Conclusions A centralised model of acute stroke care, in which hyperacute care is provided to all patients with stroke across an entire metropolitan area, can reduce mortality and length of hospital stay.

Effects of Centralizing Acute Stroke Services on Stroke Care Provision in Two Large Metropolitan Areas in England

Background and Purpose— In 2010, Greater Manchester and London centralized acute stroke care into hyperacute units (Greater Manchester=3, London=8), with additional units providing ongoing specialist stroke care nearer patients’ homes. Greater Manchester patients presenting within 4 hours of symptom onset were eligible for hyperacute unit admission; all London patients were eligible. Research indicates that postcentralization, only London’s stroke mortality fell significantly more than elsewhere in England. This article attempts to explain this difference by analyzing how centralization affects provision of evidence-based clinical interventions. Methods— Controlled before and after analysis was conducted, using national audit data covering Greater Manchester, London, and a noncentralized urban comparator (38 623 adult stroke patients, April 2008 to December 2012). Likelihood of receiving all interventions measured reliably in pre- and postcentralization audits (brain scan; stroke unit admission; receiving antiplatelet; physiotherapist, nutrition, and swallow assessments) was calculated, adjusting for age, sex, stroke-type, consciousness, and whether stroke occurred in-hospital. Results— Postcentralization, likelihood of receiving interventions increased in all areas. London patients were overall significantly more likely to receive interventions, for example, brain scan within 3 hours: Greater Manchester=65.2% (95% confidence interval=64.3–66.2); London=72.1% (71.4–72.8); comparator=55.5% (54.8–56.3). Hyperacute units were significantly more likely to provide interventions, but fewer Greater Manchester patients were admitted to these (Greater Manchester=39%; London=93%). Differences resulted from contrasting hyperacute unit referral criteria and how reliably they were followed. Conclusions— Centralized systems admitting all stroke patients to hyperacute units, as in London, are significantly more likely to provide evidence-based clinical interventions. This may help explain previous research showing better outcomes associated with fully centralized models.

Lessons for major system change: centralization of stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England

Objectives Our aim was to identify the factors influencing the selection of a model of acute stroke service centralization to create fewer high-volume specialist units in two metropolitan areas of England (London and Greater Manchester). It considers the reasons why services were more fully centralized in London than in Greater Manchester. Methods In both areas, we analysed 316 documents and conducted 45 interviews with people leading transformation, service user organizations, providers and commissioners. Inductive and deductive analyses were used to compare the processes underpinning change in each area, with reference to propositions for achieving major system change taken from a realist review of the existing literature (the Best framework), which we critique and develop further. Results In London, system leadership was used to overcome resistance to centralization and align stakeholders to implement a centralized service model. In Greater Manchester, programme leaders relied on achieving change by consensus and, lacking decision-making authority over providers, accommodated rather than challenged resistance by implementing a less radical transformation of services. Conclusions A combination of system (top-down) and distributed (bottom-up) leadership is important in enabling change. System leadership provides the political authority required to coordinate stakeholders and to capitalize on clinical leadership by aligning it with transformation goals. Policy makers should examine how the structures of system authority, with performance management and financial levers, can be employed to coordinate transformation by aligning the disparate interests of providers and commissioners.

Explaining outcomes in major system change: a qualitative study of implementing centralised acute stroke services in two large metropolitan regions in England

BackgroundImplementing major system change in healthcare is not well understood. This gap may be addressed by analysing change in terms of interrelated components identified in the implementation literature, including decision to change, intervention selection, implementation approaches, implementation outcomes, and intervention outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study of two cases of major system change: the centralisation of acute stroke services in Manchester and London, which were associated with significantly different implementation outcomes (fidelity to referral pathway) and intervention outcomes (provision of evidence-based care, patient mortality). We interviewed stakeholders at national, pan-regional, and service-levels (n = 125) and analysed 653 documents. Using a framework developed for this study from the implementation science literature, we examined factors influencing implementation approaches; how these approaches interacted with the models selected to influence implementation outcomes; and their relationship to intervention outcomes.ResultsLondon and Manchester’s differing implementation outcomes were influenced by the different service models selected and implementation approaches used. Fidelity to the referral pathway was higher in London, where a ‘simpler’, more inclusive model was used, implemented with a ‘big bang’ launch and ‘hands-on’ facilitation by stroke clinical networks. In contrast, a phased approach of a more complex pathway was used in Manchester, and the network acted more as a platform to share learning. Service development occurred more uniformly in London, where service specifications were linked to financial incentives, and achieving standards was a condition of service launch, in contrast to Manchester. ‘Hands-on’ network facilitation, in the form of dedicated project management support, contributed to achievement of these standards in London; such facilitation processes were less evident in Manchester.ConclusionsUsing acute stroke service centralisation in London and Manchester as an example, interaction between model selected and implementation approaches significantly influenced fidelity to the model. The contrasting implementation outcomes may have affected differences in provision of evidence-based care and patient mortality. The framework used in this analysis may support planning and evaluating major system changes, but would benefit from application in different healthcare contexts.

Improving care and increasing efficiency-challenges in the care of chronic eye diseases

In March 2010, the government announced its Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) initiative for England, which aimed to make £20 billion of efficiency savings in the NHS by 2015.1 The scheme calls for reduction in hospital-based care through an increase in care closer to home, efficiency through new technology and innovation through medical research.2

School-based vaccination programmes: a systematic review of the evidence on organisation and delivery in high income countries

BackgroundMany countries have recently expanded their childhood immunisation programmes. Schools are an increasingly attractive setting for delivery of these new immunisations because of their ability to reach large numbers of children in a short period of time. However, there are organisational challenges to delivery of large-scale vaccination programmes in schools. Understanding the facilitators and barriers is important for improving the delivery of future school-based vaccination programmes.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review of evidence on school-based vaccination programmes in order to understand the influence of organisational factors on the delivery of programmes. Our eligibility criteria were studies that (1) focused on childhood or adolescent vaccination programmes delivered in schools; (2) considered organisational factors that influenced the preparation or delivery of programmes; (3) were conducted in a developed or high-income country; and (4) had been peer reviewed. We searched for articles published in English between 2000 and 2015 using MEDLINE and HMIC electronic databases. Additional studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Library and bibliographies. We extracted data from the studies, assessed quality and the risk of bias, and categorised findings using a thematic framework of eight organisational factors.ResultsWe found that most of the recent published literature is from the United States and is concerned with the delivery of pandemic or seasonal flu vaccination programmes at a regional (state) or local level. We found that the literature is largely descriptive and not informed by the use of theory. Despite this, we identified common factors that influence the implementation of programmes. These factors included programme leadership and governance, organisational models and institutional relationships, workforce capacity and roles particularly concerning the school nurse, communication with parents and students, including methods for obtaining consent, and clinic organisation and delivery.ConclusionsThis is the first time that information has been brought together on the organisational factors influencing the delivery of vaccination programmes in school-based settings. An understanding of these factors, underpinned by robust theory-informed research, may help policy-makers and managers design and deliver better programmes. We identified several gaps in the research literature to propose a future research agenda, informed by theories of implementation and organisational change.

Governing patient safety: lessons learned from a mixed methods evaluation of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard in two English NHS hospitals

Background Relatively little is known about how scorecards presenting performance indicators influence medication safety. We evaluated the effects of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard piloted in two English NHS hospitals and factors influencing these. Methods We used a mixed methods, controlled before and after design. At baseline, wards were audited on medication safety indicators; during the ‘feedback’ phase scorecard results were presented to intervention wards on a weekly basis over 7 weeks. We interviewed 49 staff, including clinicians and managers, about scorecard implementation. Results At baseline, 18.7% of patients (total n=630) had incomplete allergy documentation; 53.4% of patients (n=574) experienced a drug omission in the preceding 24 h; 22.5% of omitted doses were classified as ‘critical’; 22.1% of patients (n=482) either had ID wristbands not reflecting their allergy status or no ID wristband; and 45.3% of patients (n=237) had drugs that were either unlabelled or labelled for another patient in their drug lockers. The quantitative analysis found no significant improvement in intervention wards following scorecard feedback. Interviews suggested staff were interested in scorecard feedback and described process and culture changes. Factors influencing scorecard implementation included ‘normalisation’ of errors, study duration, ward leadership, capacity to engage and learning preferences. Discussion Presenting evidence-based performance indicators may potentially influence staff behaviour. Several practical and cultural factors may limit feedback effectiveness and should be considered when developing improvement interventions. Quality scorecards should be designed with care, attending to evidence of indicators’ effectiveness and how indicators and overall scorecard composition fit the intended audience.

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme - improvements to NHS orthopaedic care in England: study protocol

BackgroundOrthopaedic procedures, such as total hip replacement and total knee replacement, are among the commonest surgical procedures in England. The Getting it Right First Time project (GIRFT) aims to deliver improvements in quality and reductions in the cost of NHS orthopaedic care across the country. We will examine whether the planned changes have delivered improvements in the quality of care and patient outcomes. We will also study the processes involved in developing and implementing changes to care, and professional and organisational factors influencing these processes. In doing so, we will identify lessons to guide future improvement work in other services.Methods/designWe will evaluate the implementation of the GIRFT programme, and its impact on outcomes and cost, using a mixed methods design. Qualitative methods will be used to understand the programme theory underlying the approach and study the effect of the intervention on practice, using a case study approach. This will include an analysis of the central GIRFT programme and local provider responses. Data will be collected via semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and documentary analysis. Quantitative methods will be used to examine ‘what works and at what cost?’ We will also conduct focus groups with patients and members of the public to explore their perceptions of the GIRFT programme. The research will draw on theories of adoption, diffusion, and sustainability of innovation; its characteristics; and contextual factors at provider-level that influence implementation.DiscussionWe will identify generalisable lessons to inform the organisation and delivery of future improvement programmes, to optimise their implementation and impact, both within the UK and internationally. Potential challenges involved in conducting the evaluation include the phased implementation of the intervention in different provider organisations; the inclusion of both retrospective and prospective components; and the effects of ongoing organisational turbulence in the English NHS. However, these issues reflect the realities of service change and its evaluation.

Recalling communities of practice

This is one of the few books that I have kept from my PhD days. Why might this one be worth a second look? Etienne Wenger, a social learning theorist turned management guru, develops the concept of ‘communities of practice’ in this book. It builds on an earlier account of apprenticeship – defined as increasing participation in socio-cultural practices – across five diverse social groups. Communities of Practice is an ethnography of learning within a large U.S. company. Wenger uses vignettes of a day in the life of a health insurance claims processor (‘Ariel’), and her various interactions with colleagues and objects in performing her job, to develop a social theory of learning. The theory emphasises the importance, for individuals, of learning through participation in activities (rather than acquiring knowledge in mental representations) and, for groups, of developing communities through ongoing interaction (‘mutual engagement’) and by developing resources (a ‘shared repertoire’) that bring meaning to those activities; that is, negotiating on a daily basis the joint enterprise of a community. The book has received over 35,000 citations to date according to Google Scholar; the idea of communities of practice has been influential among researchers and practitioners alike within health services, and more widely across the public and private sector. In health services research, use of ethnography (e.g. non-participant observation) as a method for analysing health care practices, and the idea that key processes – such as professional learning or service innovation – are interactive and social in nature, have become reasonably well established. This article’s purpose is to return to Communities of Practice and see what insights the book’s original approach might offer to current debate on practices of learning in health services research literature. The vignettes of everyday work from Wenger’s oneyear ethnography of insurance claims processing are relatively short (the two vignettes represent 20 pages of a 318-page book) and little methodological detail is provided. However, Wenger does state that he was an ‘observer-participant’, rather than a non-participant which is more often seen in contemporary health services research. He sought to become as immersed as possible in the setting, ‘by attending training classes, including exams for new recruits and a mock job interview. . . I processed claims at my own desk and participated in the conversations and social events in the unit’ (p. 284). Such an approach allowed Wenger to provide a fine-grained description of working life in the company, including interactions in the elevator, dress codes, the office layout, the documents and systems used for processing claims, reporting of conversations (‘I can’t understand your note’) and gossip (‘what’s the big deal with that mud bath?’), the sharing of birthday cake, and perceptions of work (e.g. ‘this stupid system’, ‘that was a pretty quick morning . . . a unit meeting always helps’). This rich detail is used to develop and illustrate different aspects of the concept of communities of practice – for example, that work takes place in a historical and social context in which the tacit and explicit are combined. Such attentiveness to the reporting of situational detail might add further insight to future ethnographies conducted within health services research, by offering a way of describing the ‘invisible work’ performed by health care professionals, notably informal activities that are surely familiar to us as part of ‘work’ but rarely recognised as such in formal evaluations. The concept of communities of practice draws on, and seeks to synthesise, a range of social theories of learning, including the interplay between social structures (e.g. professions or organisations) and human agency, and the ‘everyday’ nature of learning through situated or practical experience. However, current theorisations of communities of practice tend to neglect this underpinning theoretical background. While Wenger’s engagement with such wide-ranging ideas in

Study protocol: DEcisions in health Care to Introduce or Diffuse innovations using Evidence (DECIDE)

BackgroundA range of evidence informs healthcare decision-making, from formal research findings to ‘soft intelligence’ or local data, as well as practical experience or tacit knowledge. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of such evidence into practice. Using a multi-level framework, this project will analyse how interactions between the evidence available and processes at the micro (individual/group) and meso (organisational/system) levels influence decisions to introduce or diffuse innovations in acute and primary care within the National Health Service in the UK.Methods/designThis study will use a mixed methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, and involves four interdependent work streams: (1) rapid evidence synthesis of relevant literature with stakeholder feedback; (2) in-depth case studies of ‘real-world’ decision-making in acute and primary care; (3) a national survey and discrete choice experiment; and (4) development of guidance for decision-makers and evaluators to support the use of evidence in decision-making.DiscussionThis study will enhance the understanding of decision-makers’ use of diverse forms of evidence. The findings will provide insights into how and why some evidence does inform decisions to introduce healthcare innovations, and why barriers persist in other cases. It will also quantify decision-makers’ preferences, including the ‘tipping point’ of evidence needed to shift stakeholders’ views. Practical guidance will be shared with healthcare decision-makers and evaluators on uses of evidence to enable the introduction and diffusion of innovation.