Dataset Information

Variations in policies for accessing elective musculoskeletal procedures in the English National Health Service: A documentary analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The overall aim of this study was to investigate how commissioning policies for accessing clinical procedures compare in the context of the English National Health Service. Our primary objective was to compare policy wording and categorise any variations identified. Our secondary objective was to explore how any points of variation relate to national guidance.

Methods

This study entailed documentary analysis of commissioning policies that stipulated criteria for accessing eight elective musculoskeletal procedures. For each procedure, we retrieved policies held by regions with higher and lower rates of clinical activity relative to the national average. Policies were subjected to content and thematic analysis, using constant comparison techniques. Matrices and descriptive reports were used to compare themes across policies for each procedure and derive categories of variation that arose across two or more procedures. National guidance relating to each procedure were identified and scrutinised, to explore whether these provided context for explaining the policy variations.

Results

Thirty-five policy documents held by 14 geographic regions were included in the analysis. Policies either focused on a single procedure/treatment or covered several procedures/treatments in an all-encompassing document. All policies stipulated criteria that needed to be fulfilled prior to accessing treatment, but there were inconsistences in the evidence cited. Policies varied in recurring ways, with respect to specification of non-surgical treatments and management, requirements around time spent using non-surgical approaches, diagnostic requirements, requirements around symptom severity and disease progression, and use of language, in the form of terms and phrases ('threshold modifiers') which could open up or restrict access to care. National guidance was identified for seven of the procedures, but this guidance did not specify criteria for accessing the procedures in question, making direct comparisons with regional policies difficult.

Conclusions

This, to our knowledge, is the first study to identify recurring ways in which policies for accessing treatment can vary within a single-payer system with universal coverage. The findings raise questions around whether formulation of commissioning policies should receive more central support to promote greater consistency - especially where evidence is uncertain, variable or lacking.

SUBMITTER: Rooshenas L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277328 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccess to high-quality palliative care is inadequate for most people living and dying with serious illness. Policies aimed at optimising delivery of palliative and end of life care are an important mechanism to improve quality of care for the dying. The extent to which palliative care is included in national health policies is unknown. We aimed to identify priorities and opportunities for palliative and end of life care in national health policies in the UK.MethodsDocumentary analysis consisting of 1) summative content analysis to describe the extent to which palliative and end of life care is referred to and/or prioritised in national health and social care policies, and 2) thematic analysis to explore health policy priorities that are opportunities to widen access to palliative and end of life care for people with serious illness. Relevant national policy documents were identified through web searches of key government and other organisations, and through expert consultation. Documents included were UK-wide or devolved (i.e. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales), health and social care government strategies published from 2010 onwards.ResultsFifteen policy documents were included in the final analysis. Twelve referred to palliative or end of life care, but details about what should improve, or mechanisms to achieve this, were sparse. Policy priorities that are opportunities to widen palliative and end of life care access comprised three inter-related themes: (1) integrated care - conceptualised as reorganisation of services as a way to enable improvement; (2) personalised care - conceptualised as allowing people to shape and manage their own care; and (3) support for unpaid carers - conceptualised as enabling unpaid carers to live a more independent lifestyle and balance caring with their own needs.ConclusionsAlthough information on palliative and end of life care in UK health and social care policies was sparse, improving palliative care may provide an evidence-based approach to achieve the stated policy priorities of integrated care, personalised care, and support for unpaid carers. Aligning existing evidence of the benefits of palliative care with the three priorities identified may be an effective mechanism to both strengthen policy and improve care for people who are dying.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing a virtual standstill in the delivery of elective procedures in England, a national block contract between the NHS and the independent sector aimed to help restart surgical care. This study aims to describe subsequent changes in trends in elective care service delivery following implementation of the initial iteration of this contract.MethodsPopulation-based retrospective cohort study, assessing the delivery of all publicly funded and privately funded elective care delivered in England between 1 April 2020 and 31 July 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Discharge data from the Hospital Episode Statistics and private healthcare data from the Private Health Information Network was stratified by specialty, procedure, length of stay and patient complexity in terms of age and Charlson Comorbidity Index.ResultsCOVID-19 significantly reduced publicly funded elective care activity, though changes were more pronounced in the independent sector (-65.1%) compared with the NHS (-52.7%), whereas reductions in privately funded elective care activity were similar in both independent sector hospitals (-74.2%) and NHS hospitals (-72.9%). Patient complexity increased in the independent sector compared with the previous year, with mixed findings in NHS hospitals. Most specialties, irrespective of sector or funding mechanisms, experienced a reduction in hospital admissions. However, some specialities, including medical oncology, clinical oncology, clinical haematology and cardiology, experienced an increase in publicly-funded elective care activity in the independent sector.ConclusionElective care delivered by the independent sector remained significantly below historic levels, although this overlooks significant variation between regions and specialities. There may be opportunities to learn from regions which achieved more significant increases in publicly funded elective care in independent sector providers as a strategy to address the growing backlog of elective care.