Dataset Information

A person based formula for allocating commissioning funds to general practices in England: development of a statistical model.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop a formula for allocating resources for commissioning hospital care to all general practices in England based on the health needs of the people registered in each practice

Design

Multivariate prospective statistical models were developed in which routinely collected electronic information from 2005-6 and 2006-7 on individuals and the areas in which they lived was used to predict their costs of hospital care in the next year, 2007-8. Data on individuals included all diagnoses recorded at any inpatient admission. Models were developed on a random sample of 5 million people and validated on a second random sample of 5 million people and a third sample of 5 million people drawn from a random sample of practices.

Setting

All general practices in England as of 1 April 2007. All NHS inpatient admissions and outpatient attendances for individuals registered with a general practice on that date.

Subjects

All individuals registered with a general practice in England at 1 April 2007.

Main outcome measures

Power of the statistical models to predict the costs of the individual patient or each practice's registered population for 2007-8 tested with a range of metrics (R(2) reported here). Comparisons of predicted costs in 2007-8 with actual costs incurred in the same year were calculated by individual and by practice.

Results

Models including person level information (age, sex, and ICD-10 codes diagnostic recorded) and a range of area level information (such as socioeconomic deprivation and supply of health facilities) were most predictive of costs. After accounting for person level variables, area level variables added little explanatory power. The best models for resource allocation could predict upwards of 77% of the variation in costs at practice level, and about 12% at the person level. With these models, the predicted costs of about a third of practices would exceed or undershoot the actual costs by 10% or more. Smaller practices were more likely to be in these groups.

Conclusions

A model was developed that performed well by international standards, and could be used for allocations to practices for commissioning. The best formulas, however, could predict only about 12% of the variation in next year's costs of most inpatient and outpatient NHS care for each individual. Person-based diagnostic data significantly added to the predictive power of the models.

SUBMITTER: Dixon J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3222692 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 Government's 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 Government's intention to create a vibrant market of commissioning support provision.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the relational challenges for general practitioner (GP) leaders setting up new network-centric commissioning organisations in the recent health policy reform in England, we use innovation network theory to identify key network leadership practices that facilitate healthcare innovation.DesignMixed-method, multisite and case study research.SettingSix clinical commissioning groups and local clusters in the East of England area, covering in total 208 GPs and 1 662 000 population.MethodsSemistructured interviews with 56 lead GPs, practice managers and staff from the local health authorities (primary care trusts, PCT) as well as various healthcare professionals; 21 observations of clinical commissioning group (CCG) board and executive meetings; electronic survey of 58 CCG board members (these included GPs, practice managers, PCT employees, nurses and patient representatives) and subsequent social network analysis.Main outcome measuresCollaborative relationships between CCG board members and stakeholders from their healthcare network; clarifying the role of GPs as network leaders; strengths and areas for development of CCGs.ResultsDrawing upon innovation network theory provides unique insights of the CCG leaders' activities in establishing best practices and introducing new clinical pathways. In this context we identified three network leadership roles: managing knowledge flows, managing network coherence and managing network stability. Knowledge sharing and effective collaboration among GPs enable network stability and the alignment of CCG objectives with those of the wider health system (network coherence). Even though activities varied between commissioning groups, collaborative initiatives were common. However, there was significant variation among CCGs around the level of engagement with providers, patients and local authorities. Locality (sub) groups played an important role because they linked commissioning decisions with patient needs and brought the leaders closer to frontline stakeholders.ConclusionsWith the new commissioning arrangements, the leaders should seek to move away from dyadic and transactional relationships to a network structure, thereby emphasising on the emerging relational focus of their roles. Managing knowledge mobility, healthcare network coherence and network stability are the three clinical leadership processes that CCG leaders need to consider in coordinating their network and facilitating the development of good clinical commissioning decisions, best practices and innovative services. To successfully manage these processes, CCG leaders need to leverage the relational capabilities of their network as well as their clinical expertise to establish appropriate collaborations that may improve the healthcare services in England. Lack of local GP engagement adds uncertainty to the system and increases the risk of commissioning decisions being irrelevant and inefficient from patient and provider perspectives.

Project description:IntroductionIntegrated care is viewed widely as a potential solution to some of the major challenges faced by health and social care systems, such as those posed by service duplication, fragmentation and poor care coordination, and associated impacts on the quality and cost of services. Fragmented models of allocating funds to and across sectors, programmes and providers are frequently cited as a major barrier to integration and countries have experimented with different models of allocating funds to enhance care coordination among service providers and to reduce ineffective care and avoid costly adverse events. This scoping review aims to assess published international experiences of different models of allocating funds to facilitate integration and the evidence on their impacts.Methods and analysisWe will adopt a scoping review methodology due to the potentially vast and multidisciplinary nature of the literature on different models of allocating funds in health and social care systems, as well as the scarcity of existing knowledge syntheses. The framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley will be followed that entails six steps: (1) identifying the research question(s), (2) searching for relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results and (6) and conducting consultation exercises. These steps will be conducted iteratively and reflexively, making adjustments and repetitions when appropriate to make sure the literature has been covered as comprehensively as possible. To ensure comprehensiveness of our literature review, we also search a wide range of sources.Ethics and disseminationAn integrated knowledge translation strategy will be pursued by engaging our knowledge users through all stages of the review. We will organise two workshops or policy roundtables/policy dialogues in Alberta and British Columbia with participation of diverse knowledge users to discuss and interpret the findings of our review and to draw out policy opportunities and lessons that can be applied to the context of these two provinces.

Project description:From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs).We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.

Project description:Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

Project description:IntroductionPharmacovigilance may detect safety issues after marketing of medications, and this can result in regulatory action such as direct healthcare professional communications (DHPC). DHPC can be effective in changing prescribing behaviour, however the extent to which prescribers vary in their response to DHPC is unknown. This study aims to explore changes in prescribing and prescribing variation among general practitioner (GP) practices following a DHPC on the safety of mirabegron, a medication to treat overactive bladder (OAB).MethodsThis is an interrupted time series study of English GP practices from 2014?2017. National Health Service (NHS) Digital provided monthly statistics on aggregate practice-level prescribing and practice characteristics (practice staff and registered patient profiles, Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators, and deprivation of the practice area). The primary outcome was monthly mirabegron prescriptions as a percentage of all OAB drug prescriptions and we assessed the change following a DHPC issued by the European Medicines Agency in September 2015. The DHPC stated mirabegron use was contraindicated with severe uncontrolled hypertension and cautioned with hypertension. Variation between practices in mirabegron prescribing before and after the DHPC was assessed using the systematic component of variation (SCV). Multilevel segmented regression with random effects quantified the change in level and trend of prescribing after the DHPC. Practice characteristics were assessed for their association with a reduction in prescribing following the DHPC.ResultsThis study included 7408 practices. During September 2015, 88.9% of practices prescribed mirabegron and mirabegron comprised a mean of 8.2% (SD 6.8) of OAB prescriptions. Variation between practices was classified as very high and the median SCV did not change significantly (p = 0.11) in the six months after the September 2015 DHPC (12.4) compared to before (11.6). Before the DHPC, the share of mirabegron over all OAB drug prescriptions increased by 0.294 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.287, 0.301) percentage points per month. There was no significant change in the month immediately after the DHPC (-0.023, 95% CI -0.105 to 0.058), however there was a significant reduction in trend (-0.036, 95% CI -0.049 to -0.023). Higher numbers of registered patients, patients aged ?65 years, and practice area deprivation were associated with having a significant decrease in level and slope of mirabegron prescribing post-DHPC.ConclusionVariation in mirabegron prescribing was high over the study period and did not change substantively following the DHPC. There was no immediate prescribing change post-DHPC, although the monthly growth did slow. Knowledge of the degree of variation in and determinants of response to safety communications may allow those that do not change prescribing habits to be provided with additional support.