Dataset Information

A Delphi study and ranking exercise to support commissioning services: future delivery of Thrombectomy services in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intra-arterial thrombectomy is the gold standard treatment for large artery occlusive stroke. However, the evidence of its benefits is almost entirely based on trials delivered by experienced neurointerventionists working in established teams in neuroscience centres. Those responsible for the design and prospective reconfiguration of services need access to a comprehensive and complementary array of information on which to base their decisions. This will help to ensure the demonstrated effects from trials may be realised in practice and account for regional/local variations in resources and skill-sets. One approach to elucidate the implementation preferences and considerations of key experts is a Delphi survey. In order to support commissioning decisions, we aimed using an electronic Delphi survey to establish consensus on the options for future organisation of thrombectomy services among physicians with clinical experience in managing large artery occlusive stroke.

Methods

A Delphi survey was developed with 12 options for future organisation of thrombectomy services in England. A purposive sampling strategy established an expert panel of stroke physicians from the British Association of Stroke Physicians (BASP) Clinical Standards and/or Executive Membership that deliver 24/7 intravenous thrombolysis. Options with aggregate scores falling within the lowest quartile were removed from the subsequent Delphi round. Options reaching consensus following the two Delphi rounds were then ranked in a final exercise by both the wider BASP membership and the British Society of Neuroradiologists (BSNR).

Results

Eleven stroke physicians from BASP completed the initial two Delphi rounds. Three options achieved consensus, with subsequently wider BASP (97%, n?=?43) and BSNR members (86%, n?=?21) assigning the highest approval rankings in the final exercise for transferring large artery occlusive stroke patients to nearest neuroscience centre for thrombectomy based on local CT/CT Angiography.

Conclusions

The initial Delphi rounds ensured optimal reduction of options by an expert panel of stroke physicians, while subsequent ranking exercises allowed remaining options to be ranked by a wider group of experts within stroke to reach consensus. The preferred implementation option for thrombectomy is investigating suspected acute stroke patients by CT/CT Angiography and secondary transfer of large artery occlusive stroke patients to the nearest neuroscience (thrombectomy) centre.

SUBMITTER: Halvorsrud K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5824465 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Delphi study and ranking exercise to support commissioning services: future delivery of Thrombectomy services in England.

Halvorsrud Kristoffer K Flynn Darren D Ford Gary A GA McMeekin Peter P Bhalla Ajay A Balami Joyce J Craig Dawn D White Phil P

BMC health services research 20180222 1

<h4>Background</h4>Intra-arterial thrombectomy is the gold standard treatment for large artery occlusive stroke. However, the evidence of its benefits is almost entirely based on trials delivered by experienced neurointerventionists working in established teams in neuroscience centres. Those responsible for the design and prospective reconfiguration of services need access to a comprehensive and complementary array of information on which to base their decisions. This will help to ensure the dem ...[more]

PMID: 29471828

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeBoth intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and intra-arterial endovascular thrombectomy (ET) improve the outcome of patients with acute ischaemic stroke, with endovascular thrombectomy being an option for those patients with large vessel occlusions. We sought to understand how organisation of services affects time to treatment for both intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy.MethodA multi-objective optimisation approach was used to explore the relationship between the number of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy centres and times to treatment. The analysis is based on 238,887 emergency stroke admissions in England over 3 years (2013-2015).ResultsProviding hyper-acute care only in comprehensive stroke centres (CSC, providing both intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy, and performing >150 endovascular thrombectomy per year, maximum 40 centres) in England would lead to 15% of patients being more than 45 min away from care, and would create centres with up to 4300 stroke admissions/year. Mixing hyper-acute stroke units (providing intravenous thrombolysis only) with comprehensive stroke centres speeds time to intravenous thrombolysis and mitigates admission numbers to comprehensive stroke centres, but at the expense of increasing time to endovascular thrombectomy. With 24 comprehensive stroke centres and all remaining current acute stroke units as hyper-acute stroke units, redirecting patients directly to attend a comprehensive stroke centre by accepting a small delay (15-min maximum) in intravenous thrombolysis reduces time to endovascular thrombectomy: 25% of all patients would be redirected from hyper-acute stroke units to a comprehensive stroke centre, with an average delay in intravenous thrombolysis of 8 min, and an average improvement in time to endovascular thrombectomy of 80 min. The balance of comprehensive stroke centre:hyper-acute stroke unit admissions would change from 24:76 to 49:51.ConclusionPlanning of hyper-acute stroke services is best achieved when considering all forms of acute care and ambulance protocol together. Times to treatment need to be considered alongside manageable and sustainable admission numbers.

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: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:Background Oral anticoagulation therapy has proven beneficial impact on the prevention of thromboembolic events. However, the use of antocoagulatns also increases the risk of bleeds. To maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of the treatment, guidance on appropriate use of oral anticoagulants is essential. An international guideline describing relevant components and requirements for pharmaceutical care for patients receiving a therapy woth oral antocoagulants would increase the quality of care. However, recommendations on pharmaceutical care for patients on anticoagulation is lacking. Objective This study aims to develop an interprofessional guideline to support patients in their use of oral anticoagulation therapy. Method Two systematic literature searches were performed on existing guidelines on the management and interventions to improve-oral anticoagulant use, to generate possible recommendations. Subsequently, an international expert panel with 26 pharmacists with extensive experience in clinical and/or scientific work on anticoagulation from a total of 22 European and 4 non-European countries was constituted. With this (geographically well distributed) expert panel, a four-round internet-based Delphi technique was conducted to reach consensus on their relevance. Items were ranked on a 1-10 scale of agreement. A median agreement score of ≥ 7.5 was considered the threshold for consensus. Levels of importance were rated on a 1-3 scale. Setting A global network of 26 pharmacists specialized in oral antocoagulation therapy. Main outcome measure Development of inter-professional guideline. Results After the four Delphi rounds 18 guideline recommendations were formulated. Consensus of opinion was achieved for all recommendations (median agreement: 8.5-10.0), whereas mean levels of importance were between 1.1 and 2.0 (SD: 0.2-0.7). The following domains were rated as most important targets for improving the care around oral anticoagulation: 'INR-monitoring', 'Transfer of care between health care settings', 'Adherence to medication', 'Patient communication and engagement', and 'Medication reconciliation and medication review'. Conclusion The 18 recommendations included in this guideline provide the base for optimization of anticoagulation care across different countries/healthcare systems. Future work involves translating the guideline recommendations into clinical practice. Once implemented, the recommendations of the guideline will support health care providers with the pharmaceutical care for patients on, oral anticoagulation which will improve the effective and safe use of these medicines.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to provide a national picture of the extent and nature of public health services commissioned by local authorities (LAs) from community pharmacies across England in financial year 2014/15.DesignCross-sectional survey of public health services commissioned in community pharmacies by LAs, gathered via freedom of information requests and documentary analysis.Setting and participantsAll 152 LAs in England.ResultsA total of 833 commissioned services were reported across England (range 3-10 per LA). Four services were commissioned by over 90% of LAs: emergency hormonal contraception (EHC), smoking cessation support, supervised consumption of methadone or other opiates and needle and syringe programmes (NSPs). The proportion of pharmacies commissioned to deliver these services varied considerably between LAs from <10% to 100%. This variation was not related to differences in relevant proxy measures of need. NHS Health Checks and alcohol screening and brief advice were commissioned by fewer LAs (32% and 15%, respectively), again with no relationship to relevant measures of need. A range of other services were commissioned less frequently, by fewer than 10% of LAs.Supervised consumption and NSPs were the most frequently used services, with over 4.4 million individual supervisions and over 1.4 million needle packs supplied. Pharmacies provided over 200 000 consultations for supply of EHC, over 30 000 supplies of free condoms and almost 16 000 chlamydia screening kits. More than 55 000 people registered to stop smoking in a community pharmacy, almost 30 000 were screened for alcohol use and over 26 000 NHS Health Checks were delivered.ConclusionsThere is significant variation in commissioning and delivery of public health services in community pharmacies across England, which correlate poorly with potential benefit to local populations. Research to ascertain reasons for this variation is needed to ensure that future commissioning and delivery of these services matches local need.

Project description:Scoping studies have been used across a range of disciplines for a wide variety of purposes. However, their value is increasingly limited by a lack of definition and clarity of purpose. The UK's Service Delivery and Organisation Research Programme (SDO) has extensive experience of commissioning and using such studies; twenty four have now been completed.This review article has four objectives; to describe the nature of the scoping studies that have been commissioned by the SDO Programme; to consider the impact of and uses made of such studies; to provide definitions for the different elements that may constitute a scoping study; and to describe the lessons learnt by the SDO Programme in commissioning scoping studies.Scoping studies are imprecisely defined but usually consist of one or more discrete components; most commonly they are non-systematic reviews of the literature, but other important elements are literature mapping, conceptual mapping and policy mapping. Some scoping studies also involve consultations with stakeholders including the end users of research.Scoping studies have been used for a wide variety of purposes, although a common feature is to identify questions and topics for future research. The reports of scoping studies often have an impact that extends beyond informing research commissioners about future research areas; some have been published in peer reviewed journals, and others have been published in research summaries aimed at a broader audience of health service managers and policymakers.Key lessons from the SDO experience are the need to relate scoping studies to a particular health service context; the need for scoping teams to be multi-disciplinary and to be given enough time to integrate diverse findings; and the need for the research commissioners to be explicit not only about the aims of scoping studies but also about their intended uses. This necessitates regular contact between researchers and commissioners.Scoping studies are an essential element in the portfolio of approaches to research, particularly as a mechanism for helping research commissioners and policy makers to ask the right questions. Their utility will be further enhanced by greater recognition of the individual components, definitions for which are provided.

Dataset Information

A Delphi study and ranking exercise to support commissioning services: future delivery of Thrombectomy services in England.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Delphi study and ranking exercise to support commissioning services: future delivery of Thrombectomy services in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets