Dataset Information

Examining variations in hospital productivity in the English NHS.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Numerous papers have measured hospital efficiency, mainly using a technique known as data envelopment analysis (DEA). A shortcoming of this technique is that the number of outputs for each hospital generally outstrips the number of hospitals. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach, involving the use of explicit weights to combine diverse outputs into a single index, thereby avoiding the need for DEA.

Methods

Hospital productivity is measured as the ratio of outputs to inputs. Outputs capture quantity and quality of care for hospital patients; inputs include staff, equipment, and capital resources applied to patient care. Ordinary least squares regression is used to analyse why output and productivity varies between hospitals. We assess whether results are sensitive to consideration of quality.

Results

Hospital productivity varies substantially across hospitals but is highly correlated year on year. Allowing for quality has little impact on relative productivity. We find that productivity is lower in hospitals with greater financial autonomy, and where a large proportion of income derives from education, research and development, and training activities. Hospitals treating greater proportions of children or elderly patients also tend to be less productive.

Conclusions

We have set out a means of assessing hospital productivity that captures their multiple outputs and inputs. We find substantial variation in productivity among English hospitals, suggesting scope for productivity improvement.

SUBMITTER: Castelli A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4361750 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence, nature and predictors of patients having medication administration omissions in hospitals.MethodsAll medication administration omissions data collected using the standardised methodology of the Medication Safety Thermometer in January 2015 were examined. Hospital inpatients prescribed at least one medication were included in the analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models ascertained the effects of patients' gender, age, number of prescribed medicines, ward specialty and medicines reconciliation initiation status on the likelihood of having omissions. Valid clinical reasons (VCRs) were excluded from regression models. A sensitivity analysis, excluding patient refusal (PR) omissions, was also conducted.ResultsThe final study sample included 5708 patients from 320 wards in 37 hospitals. Excluding VCRs, 30% of patients had medication administration omissions (95% CI 29 to 30). Approximately half of patients with omissions had refused medicines (51%, 95%?CI 49 to 53). Univariable analysis suggested that all variables were significantly associated with omissions. However, in the multivariable model, significant differences were only observed regarding the numbers of medicines patients were prescribed and their ward specialty. Patients prescribed more than 20 medications were approximately five times more likely to have had omissions than patients prescribed one to four medications (OR 4.99, 95%?CI 3.22 to 7.73). Patients on surgical wards were also more likely to have had omissions than those on medical wards (OR 1.58, 95%?CI 1.14 to 2.18, p=0.006), but there was no significant difference when PRs were excluded (OR 0.5, 95%?CI 0.27 to 1.22, p=0.473).ConclusionMedication administration omissions are a substantial problem that affect many hospital patients, and certain patient groups are at higher risk. Specific interventions are required targeting the underlying reasons for medication omissions for different patient subgroups.

Project description:Systems and processes for prescribing, supplying and administering inpatient medications can have substantial impact on medication administration errors (MAEs). However, little is known about the medication systems and processes currently used within the English National Health Service (NHS). This presents a challenge for developing NHS-wide interventions to increase medication safety. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional postal census of medication systems and processes in English NHS hospitals to address this knowledge gap.The chief pharmacist at each of all 165 acute NHS trusts was invited to complete a questionnaire for medical and surgical wards in their main hospital (July 2011). We report here the findings relating to medication systems and processes, based on 18 closed questions plus one open question about local medication safety initiatives. Non-respondents were posted another questionnaire (August 2011), and then emailed (October 2011).One hundred (61% of NHS trusts) questionnaires were returned. Most hospitals used paper-based prescribing on the majority of medical and surgical inpatient wards (87% of hospitals), patient bedside medication lockers (92%), patients' own drugs (89%) and 'one-stop dispensing' medication labelled with administration instructions for use at discharge as well as during the inpatient stay (85%). Less prevalent were the use of ward pharmacy technicians (62% of hospitals) or pharmacists (58%) to order medications on the majority of wards. Only 65% of hospitals used drug trolleys; 50% used patient-specific inpatient supplies on the majority of wards. Only one hospital had a pharmacy open 24 hours, but all had access to an on-call pharmacist. None reported use of unit-dose dispensing; 7% used an electronic drug cabinet in some ward areas. Overall, 85% of hospitals had a double-checking policy for intravenous medication and 58% for other specified drugs. "Do not disturb" tabards/overalls were routinely used during nurses' drug rounds on at least one ward in 59% of hospitals.Inter- and intra-hospital variations in medication systems and processes exist, even within the English NHS; future research should focus on investigating their potential effects on nurses' workflow and MAEs, and developing NHS-wide interventions to reduce MAEs.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2012, the UK introduced medical revalidation, whereby to retain their licence all doctors are required to show periodically that they are up to date and fit to practise medicine. Early reports suggested that some doctors found the process overly onerous and chose to leave practice. This study investigates the effect of medical revalidation on the rate at which consultants (senior hospital doctors) leave NHS practice, and assesses any differences between the performance of consultants who left or remained in practice before and after the introduction of revalidation.MethodsWe used a retrospective cohort of administrative data from the Hospital Episode Statistics database on all consultants who were working in English NHS hospitals between April 2008 and March 2009 (n = 19,334), followed to March 2015. Proportional hazard models were used to identify the effect of medical revalidation on the time to exit from the NHS workforce, as implied by ceasing NHS clinical activity. The main exposure variable was consultants' time-varying revalidation status, which differentiates between periods when consultants were (a) not subject to revalidation-before the policy was introduced, (b) awaiting a revalidation recommendation and (c) had received a positive recommendation to be revalidated. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the performance of those who left practice with those who remained in practice before and after the introduction of revalidation, as proxied by case-mix-adjusted 30-day mortality rates.ResultsAfter 2012, consultants who had not yet revalidated were at an increased hazard of ceasing NHS clinical practice (HR 2.33, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.57) compared with pre-policy levels. This higher risk remained after a positive recommendation (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.06) but was statistically significantly reduced (p < 0.001). We found no statistically significant differences in mortality rates between those consultants who ceased practice and those who remained, after adjustment for multiple testing.ConclusionRevalidation appears to have led to greater numbers of doctors ceasing clinical practice, over and above other contemporaneous influences. Those ceasing clinical practice do not appear to have provided lower quality care, as approximated by mortality rates, when compared with those remaining in practice.

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand organisational technology adoption (initiation, adoption decision, implementation) by looking at the different types of innovation knowledge used during this process.DesignQualitative, multisite, comparative case study design.SettingOne primary care and 11 acute care organisations (trusts) across all health regions in England in the context of infection prevention and control. PARTICIPANTS AND DATA ANALYSIS: 121 semistructured individual and group interviews with 109 informants, involving clinical and non-clinical staff from all organisational levels and various professional groups. Documentary evidence and field notes were also used. 38 technology adoption processes were analysed using an integrated approach combining inductive and deductive reasoning.Main findingsThose involved in the process variably accessed three types of innovation knowledge: 'awareness' (information that an innovation exists), 'principles' (information about an innovation's functioning principles) and 'how-to' (information required to use an innovation properly at individual and organisational levels). Centralised (national, government-led) and local sources were used to obtain this knowledge. Localised professional networks were preferred sources for all three types of knowledge. Professional backgrounds influenced an asymmetric attention to different types of innovation knowledge. When less attention was given to 'how-to' compared with 'principles' knowledge at the early stages of the process, this contributed to 12 cases of incomplete implementation or discontinuance after initial adoption.ConclusionsPotential adopters and change agents often overlooked or undervalued 'how-to' knowledge. Balancing 'principles' and 'how-to' knowledge early in the innovation process enhanced successful technology adoption and implementation by considering efficacy as well as strategic, structural and cultural fit with the organisation's context. This learning is critical given the policy emphasis for health organisations to be innovation-ready.