Dataset Information

Does prevention-focused integration lead to the triple aim? An evaluation of two new care models in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine the effectiveness of two integrated care models ('vanguards') in Salford and South Somerset in England, United Kingdom, in relation to patient experience, health outcomes and costs of care (the 'triple aim').

Methods

We used difference-in-differences analysis combined with propensity score weighting to compare the two care model sites with control ('usual care') areas in the rest of England. We estimated combined and separate annual effects in the three years following introduction of the new care model, using the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) to measure patient experience (inter-organisational support with chronic condition management) and generic health status (EQ-5D); and hospital episode statistics (HES) data to measure total costs of secondary care. As secondary outcomes we measured proxies for improved prevention: cost per user of secondary care (severity); avoidable emergency admissions; and primary care utilisation.

Results

Both intervention sites showed an increase in total costs of secondary care (approximately £74 per registered patient per year in Salford, £45 in South Somerset) and cost per user of secondary care (£130-138 per person per year). There were no statistically significant effects on health status or patient experience of care. There was a more apparent short-term negative effect on measured outcomes in South Somerset, in terms of increased costs and avoidable emergency admissions, but these reduced over time.

Conclusion

New care models such as those implemented within the Vanguard programme in England might lead to unintended secondary care cost increases in the short to medium term. Cost increases appeared to be driven by average patient severity increases in hospital. Prevention-focused population health management models of integrated care, like previous more targeted models, do not immediately improve the health system's triple aim.

SUBMITTER: Stokes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013794 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChildhood overweight and obesity is a major public health concern. Community-based interventions have the potential to reach caregivers and children. However, the overall health impact of these programs is rarely comprehensively assessed. This study evaluated a physical activity and healthy eating family program (Healthy Together; HT) using the RE-AIM framework.MethodsTen sites implemented the 5-week program. Thirty-nine staff members and 277 program participants (126 caregivers [M age ?=?35.6] and 151 children [M age ?=?13]) participated in the evaluation. Each RE-AIM dimension was assessed independently using a mixed-methods approach. Sources of data included archival records, interviews and surveys. Effectiveness outcome variables were assessed at pre- and post-intervention and 6-month follow-up.ResultsReach: HT participants were almost entirely recruited from existing programs within sites. Effectiveness: Caregivers' nutrition related efficacy beliefs increased following HT (ps?<?.03). Participation in HT was not associated with significant changes in physical activity or nutrition behaviour or perceived social support (ps?>?.05). Knowledge surrounding healthy diets and physical activity increased in children and caregivers (ps?<?.05). Adoption: Thirty-five percent of sites approached to implement HT expressed interest. The 10 sites selected recruited existing staff members to implement HT.ImplementationProgram objectives were met 72.8% of the time and 71 adaptations were made. HT was finance- and time-dependent. Maintenance: Two sites fully implemented HT in the follow-up year and 5 sites incorporated aspects of HT into other programs.ConclusionsWorking alongside organizations that develop community programs to conduct comprehensive, arms-length evaluations can systematically highlight areas of success and challenges. Overall HT represents a feasible community-based intervention; however further support is required in order to ensure the program is effective at positively targeting the desired outcomes. As a result of this evaluation, modifications are currently being implemented to HT.

Project description:BackgroundPatient medicines helplines provide a means of accessing medicines-related support following hospital discharge. However, it is unknown how many National Health Service (NHS) Trusts currently provide a helpline, nor how they are operated. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance), we sought to obtain key data concerning the provision and use of patient medicines helplines in NHS Trusts in England. This included the extent to which the delivery of helplines meet with national standards that are endorsed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (standards pertaining to helpline access, availability, and promotion).MethodsAn online survey was sent to Medicines Information Pharmacists and Chief Pharmacists at all 226 acute, mental health, specialist, and community NHS Trusts in England in 2017.ResultsAdoption: Fifty-two percent of Trusts reported providing a patient medicines helpline (acute: 67%; specialist: 41%; mental health: 29%; community: 18%). Reach: Helplines were predominantly available for discharged inpatients, outpatients, and carers (98%, 95% and 93% of Trusts, respectively), and to a lesser extent, the local public (22% of Trusts). The median number of enquiries received per week was five.ImplementationFor helpline access, 54% of Trusts reported complying with all 'satisfactory' standards, and 26% reported complying with all 'commendable' standards. For helpline availability, the percentages were 86% and 5%, respectively. For helpline promotion, these percentages were 3% and 40%. One Trust reported complying with all standards. Maintenance: The median number of years that helplines had been operating was six. Effectiveness: main perceived benefits included patients avoiding harm, and improving patients' medication adherence.ConclusionsPatient medicines helplines are provided by just over half of NHS Trusts in England. However, the proportion of mental health and community Trusts that operate a helpline is less than half of that of the acute Trusts, and there are regional variations in helpline provision. Adherence to the national standards could generally be improved, although the lowest adherence was regarding helpline promotion. Recommendations to increase the use of helplines include increasing the number of promotional methods used, the number of ways to contact the service, and the number of hours that the service is available.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. DESIGN:We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. SETTING:Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. INTERVENTIONS:Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9?months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. PARTICIPANTS:Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. FINDINGS:The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. CONCLUSIONS:The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.