Unintended consequences of the 18-week referral to treatment standard in NHS England: a threshold analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In 2012, an '18-week referral to treatment standard' was introduced in England. Among people on the list of those waiting for hospital treatment at a point in time, the standard states that at least '92% of patients should have been waiting for less than 18 weeks'. Targets can have unintended consequences, where patients are prioritised based on the target rather than clinical need. Such an effect will be evident as a spike in the number of hospital trusts at the target threshold, referred to as a threshold effect. This study examines for threshold effects across all non-specialist acute NHS England hospital trusts by financial year. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of publicly available data examined waiting times for patients on the waiting list. We examined trust performance against the 92% target by financial year, from 2015/16 to 2021/22, using Cattaneo et al's manipulation density test (test for discontinuity/spike in data around target threshold) for all patients and by type of treatment. RESULTS: The proportion of NHS hospital trusts meeting the 92% target deteriorated over time. From 2015/16 to 2019/20, there was strong evidence of a threshold effect at the 92% target (p<0.001). There was no evidence of a threshold effect in 2020/21 (p=0.063) or 2021/22 (p=0.090). Threshold effects were present across most types of treatment in 2016/17 and fewer types from 2017/18 onwards. CONCLUSION: We observed striking evidence of a threshold effect suggesting that while targets change behaviour, they do so in a selective way, focusing on the threshold rather than a pervasive improvement in practice. However, at the height of the pandemic, as almost no trusts could reach the target, the threshold effect disappeared.

Ethnicity and prognosis following a cardiovascular event in people with and without type 2 diabetes: Observational analysis in over 5 million subjects in England.

AIMS: To quantify ethnic differences in the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events following a first CVD event in people with and without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We identified 5,349,271 subjects with a first CVD between 1 January 2002 and 31 May 2020 in England; CVD included aortic aneurism, cerebrovascular accident, heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and other cardiovascular diseases. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for type 2 diabetes and ethnicity of three outcomes: fatal and nonfatal second CVD event (different phenotype compared to the first) and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Relative to White, HRs indicated lower rates in all ethnicities and for all outcomes in both men (from 0.64 to 0.79 for all-cause death; 0.78-0.79 for CVD-related death; and 0.85-0.98 for a second CVD event) and women (0.69-0.77; 0.77-0.83; 0.83-0.95, respectively). Irrespective of ethnicity and sex, type 2 diabetes increased rates of all outcomes by around a third. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis following a CVD event was consistently worse in subjects with type 2 diabetes while varied across ethnicities, suggesting the implementation of different strategies for the secondary prevention of CVD in different ethnic groups.