Dataset Information

The impact of a combinatorial digital and organisational intervention on the management of long-term conditions in UK primary care: a non-randomised evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Better management of long-term conditions remains a policy priority, with a focus on improving outcomes and reducing use of expensive hospital services. A number of interventions have been tested, but many have failed to show benefit in rigorous comparative research. In 2016, the NHS Test Beds scheme was launched to implement and test interventions combining digital technologies and pathway redesign in routine health care settings, with each intervention comprising multiple innovations to better realise benefit from their 'combinatorial' effect. We present the evaluation of one of the NHS Test Beds, which combined risk stratification algorithms, practice-based quality improvement and health monitoring and coaching to improve management of long-term conditions in a single health economy in the north-west of England.

Methods

The NHS Test Bed was implemented in one clinical commissioning group in the north-west of England (patient population 235,800 served by 36 general practices). Routine administrative data on hospital use (the primary outcome) and a selection of secondary outcomes (data from both hospital and primary care) were collected in the intervention site, and from a comparator area in the same region. We used difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes in the NHS Test Bed area and the comparator after initiation of the combinatorial intervention.

Results

Tests confirmed the existence of parallel trends in the intervention and comparator sites for hospital outcomes for the period April 2016 to March 2017, and for some of the planned primary care outcomes. Based on 10 months of post-intervention secondary care data and 13 months post-intervention primary care data, we found no significant impact on primary outcomes between the intervention and comparator site, and a significant impact on only one secondary outcome.

Conclusion

A combinatorial digital and organisational intervention to improve the management of long-term conditions was implemented across a whole health economy, but we found no evidence of a positive impact on health care utilisation outcomes in hospital and primary care.

SUBMITTER: Lugo-Palacios DG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6416963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of an intervention to enhance self management support for patients with chronic conditions in UK primary care.DesignPragmatic, two arm, cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practices, serving a population in northwest England with high levels of deprivation.Participants5599 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes (n=2546), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=1634), and irritable bowel syndrome (n=1419) from 43 practices (19 intervention and 22 control practices).InterventionPractice level training in a whole systems approach to self management support. Practices were trained to use a range of resources: a tool to assess the support needs of patients, guidebooks on self management, and a web based directory of local self management resources. Training facilitators were employed by the health management organisation.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were shared decision making, self efficacy, and generic health related quality of life measured at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were general health, social or role limitations, energy and vitality, psychological wellbeing, self care activity, and enablement.ResultsWe randomised 44 practices and recruited 5599 patients, representing 43% of the eligible population on the practice lists. 4533 patients (81.0%) completed the six month follow-up and 4076 (72.8%) the 12 month follow-up. No statistically significant differences were found between patients attending trained practices and those attending control practices on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. All effect size estimates were well below the prespecified threshold of clinically important difference.ConclusionsAn intervention to enhance self management support in routine primary care did not add noticeable value to existing care for long term conditions. The active components required for effective self management support need to be better understood, both within primary care and in patients' everyday lives.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN90940049.

Project description:Physical activity is important in the self-management of long-term conditions (LTCs). However, implementing physical activity into clinical practice is challenging, due to complex barriers including access to programmes, time pressures, and transport costs, for people with comorbidities, managing multiple responsibilities. Various digital tools exist to overcome these barriers and support wide-scale implementation to help people stay physically active. We explored the experiences, needs and preferences of healthcare professionals and commissioners, regarding the use of digital tools to support people with LTCs to self-manage using physical activity. This included barriers and facilitators to implementing digital tools to support people with LTCs in NHS settings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted (April 2021 to January 2022) in Wessex, southern England, UK. Purposive sampling was used to recruit general practitioners and healthcare professionals, and convenience sampling to recruit commissioners (n = 15). Transcripts were coded to develop conceptual themes allowing comparisons between and among perspectives, with the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)'s four constructs used to aid interpretation. Results showed that most digital tools supporting physical activity for LTCs, are not well implemented clinically. Current digital tools were seen to lack condition-specificity, usability/acceptability evidence-base, and voluntary sector involvement (i.e., NPT: coherence or 'making sense'). Healthcare professionals and commissioners were unlikely to engage with use of digital tools unless they were integrated into health service IT systems and professional networks (i.e., NPT: cognitive participation), or adaptable to the digital literacy levels of service users and staff (i.e., NPT: collective action-needs for implementation). In practice, this meant being technically, easy to use and culturally accessible (i.e., NPT: collective action-promoting healthcare work). COVID-19 changed professional attitudes towards digital tools, in that they saw them being viable, feasible and critical options in a way they had not done before the pandemic. Implementation was also influenced by endorsement and trustworthiness enhancing the perception of them as secure and evidence-based (i.e., NPT: reflective monitoring). Our findings highlight that consideration must be given to ensuring that digital tools are accessible to both healthcare professionals and patients, have usability/acceptability, and are adaptable to specific LTCs. To promote clinical engagement, digital tools must be evidence-based, endorsed by professional networks, and integrated into existing health systems. Digital literacy of patients and professionals is also crucial for cross-service implementation.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited evidence, mainly from high-income countries, that digital health interventions improve type 2 diabetes (T2DM) care. Large-scale implementation studies are lacking.MethodsA multifaceted digital health intervention comprising: (1) a self-management application ('app') for patients and lay 'family health promotors' (FHPs); and (2) clinical decision support for primary care doctors was evaluated in an open-label, parallel, cluster randomized controlled trial in 80 communities (serviced by a primary care facility for >1000 residents) in Hebei Province, China. People >40 years with T2DM and a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7% were recruited (∼25/community). After baseline assessment, community clusters were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups (1:1) via a web-based system, stratified by locality (rural/urban). Control arm clusters received usual care without access to the digital health application or family health promoters. The primary outcome was at the participant level defined as the proportion with ≥2 "ABC" risk factor targets achieved (HbA1c < 7.0%, blood pressure < 140/80 mmHg and LDL-cholesterol < 2.6 mmol/L) at 24 months.FindingsA total of 2072 people were recruited from the 80 community clusters (40 urban and 40 rural), with 1872 (90.3%) assessed at 24 months. In the intervention arm, patients used FHPs for support more in rural than urban communities (252 (48.6%) rural vs 92 (21.5%) urban, p < 0.0001). The mean monthly proportion of active app users was 46.4% (SD 7.8%) with no significant difference between urban and rural usage rates. The intervention was associated with improved ABC control rates (339 [35.9%] intervention vs 276 [29.9%] usual care; RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.40; p = 0.025), with significant heterogeneity by geography (rural 220 [42.6%] vs 158 [31.0%]; urban 119 [27.9%] vs 118 [28.6%]; p = 0.022 for interaction). Risk factor reductions were mainly driven by improved glycaemic control (mean HbA1C difference -0.33%, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.17; p = 0.00025 and mean fasting plasma glucose difference -0.58 mmol, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.27; p = 0.00013). There were no changes in blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol levels.InterpretationA multifaceted digital health intervention improved T2DM risk factor control rates, particularly in rural communities where there may be stronger relationships between patients and doctors and greater family member support.FundingNational Health and Medical Research CouncilGlobal Alliance for Chronic Diseases (ID 1094712).

Project description:IntroductionIn the UK, primary care is seen as the optimal context for delivering care to an ageing population with a growing number of long-term conditions. However, if it is to meet these demands effectively and efficiently, a more precise understanding of existing care processes is required to ensure their configuration is based on robust evidence. This need to understand and optimise organisational performance is not unique to healthcare, and in industries such as telecommunications or finance, a methodology known as 'process mining' has become an established and successful method to identify how an organisation can best deploy resources to meet the needs of its clients and customers. Here and for the first time in the UK, we will apply it to primary care settings to gain a greater understanding of how patients with two of the most common chronic conditions are managed.Methods and analysisThe study will be conducted in three phases; first, we will apply process mining algorithms to the data held on the clinical management system of four practices of varying characteristics in the West Midlands to determine how each interacts with patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes. Second, we will use traditional process mapping exercises at each practice to manually produce maps of care processes for the selected condition. Third, with the aid of staff and patients at each practice, we will compare and contrast the process models produced by process mining with the process maps produced via manual techniques, review differences and similarities between them and the relative importance of each. The first pilot study will be on hypertension and the second for patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been provided by East Midlands-Leicester South Regional Ethics Committee (REC reference 18/EM/0284). Having refined the automated production of maps of care processes, we can explore pinch points and bottlenecks, process variants and unexpected behaviour, and make informed recommendations to improve the quality and efficiency of care. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.