Palliative care delivery according to age in 12,000 women with metastatic breast cancer: Analysis in the multicentre ESME-MBC cohort 2008-2016.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age. METHODS: The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification. RESULTS: Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (<65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/<65: ß = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01). CONCLUSION: We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions.

Increasing autonomy in publically owned services.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to explore government efforts to enhance the autonomy of community health services (CHS) in England through the creation of Foundation Trusts status. It considers why some CHS elected to become nascent Community Foundation Trusts (CFTs) while others had not and what advantages they thought increased levels of autonomy offered. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Data are drawn from the evaluation of the Department of Health's CFT pilot programme. Participants were purposively selected from pilot sites, as well as from comparator non-pilot organisations. A total of 44 staff from 14 organisations were interviewed. FINDINGS: The data reveals that regardless of the different pathways that organisations were on, they all shared the same goal, a desire for greater autonomy, but specifically within the NHS. Additionally, irrespective of their organisational form most organisations were considering an almost identical set of initiatives as a means to improve service delivery and productivity. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Despite the expectations of policy makers no CFTs were established during the course of the study, so it is not possible to find out what the effect of such changes were. Nevertheless, the authors were able to investigate the attitudes of all the providers of CHS to the plans to increase their managerial autonomy, whether simply by separating from PCTs or by becoming CFTs. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: As no CFTs have yet been formed, this study provides the only evidence to date about increasing autonomy for CHS in England.

Does hospital ownership affect patient experience? An investigation into public-private sector differences in England.

Using patient experience survey data, the paper investigates whether hospital ownership affects the level of quality reported by patients whose care is funded by the National Health Service in areas other than clinical quality. We estimate a switching regression model that accounts for (i) some observable characteristics of the patient and the hospital episode; (ii) selection into private hospitals; and (iii) unmeasured hospital characteristics captured by hospital fixed effects. We find that the experience reported by patients in public and private hospitals is different, i.e. most dimensions of quality are delivered differently by the two types of hospitals, with each sector offering greater quality in certain specialties or to certain groups of patients. However, the sum of all ownership effects is not statistically different from zero at sample means. In other words, hospital ownership in and of itself does not affect the level of quality of the average patient's reported experience. Differences in mean reported quality levels between the private and public sectors are entirely attributable to patient characteristics, the selection of patients into public or private hospitals and unobserved characteristics specific to individual hospitals, rather than to hospital ownership.

Provider diversity in the English NHS: a study of recent developments in four local health economies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of provider diversity on quality and innovation in the English NHS by mapping the extent of diverse provider activity and identifying the differences in performance between Third Sector Organisations (TSOs), for-profit private enterprises, and incumbent organizations within the NHS, and the factors that affect the entry and growth of new providers. METHODS: Case studies of four local health economies. Data included: semi-structured interviews with 48 managerial and clinical staff from NHS organizations and providers from the private and third sector; some documentary evidence; a focus group with service users; and routine data from the Care Quality Commission and Companies House. Data collection was mainly between November 2008 and November 2009. RESULTS: Involvement of diverse providers in the NHS is limited. Commissioners' local strategies influence degrees of diversity. Barriers to entry for TSOs include lack of economies of scale in the bidding process. Private providers have greater concern to improve patient pathways and patient experience, whereas TSOs deliver quality improvements by using a more holistic approach and a greater degree of community involvement. Entry of new providers drives NHS trusts to respond by making improvements. Information sharing diminishes as competition intensifies. CONCLUSIONS: There is scope to increase the participation of diverse providers in the NHS but care must be taken not to damage public accountability, overall productivity, equity and NHS providers (especially acute hospitals, which are likely to remain in the NHS) in the process.

Innovation and the English National Health Service: a qualitative study of the independent sector treatment centre programme.

Over the past two decades, an international trend of exposing public health services to different forms of economic organisation has emerged. In the English National Health Service (NHS), care is currently provided through a quasi-market including 'diverse' providers from the private and third sector. The predominant scheme through which private sector companies have been awarded NHS contracts is the Independent Sector Treatment Centre (ISTC) programme. ISTCs were designed to produce innovative models of service delivery for elective care and stimulate innovation among incumbent NHS providers. This paper investigates these claims using qualitative data on the impact of an ISTC upon a local health economy (LHE) composed of NHS organisations in England. Using the case of elective orthopaedic surgery, we conducted semi-structured interviews with senior managers from incumbent NHS providers and an ISTC in 2009. We show that ISTCs exhibit a different relationship with frontline clinicians because they counteract the power of professional communities associated with the NHS. This has positive and negative consequences for innovation. ISTCs have introduced new routines unencumbered by the extant norms of professional communities, but they appear to represent weaker learning environments and do not reproduce cooperation across organisational boundaries to the same extent as incumbent NHS providers.