Measuring the overall performance of mental healthcare providers.

To date there have been no attempts to construct composite measures of healthcare provider performance which reflect preferences for health and non-health benefits, as well as costs. Health and non-health benefits matter to patients, healthcare providers and the general public. We develop a novel provider performance measurement framework that combines health gain, non-health benefit, and cost and illustrate it with an application to 54 English mental health providers. We apply estimates from a discrete choice experiment eliciting the UK general population's valuation of non-health benefits relative to health gains, to administrative and patient survey data for years 2013-2015 to calculate equivalent health benefit (eHB) for providers. We measure costs as forgone health and quantify the relative performance of providers in terms of equivalent net health benefit (eNHB): the value of the health and non-health benefits minus the forgone benefit equivalent of cost. We compare rankings of providers by eHB, eNHB, and by the rankings produced by the hospital sector regulator. We find that taking account of the non-health benefits in the eNHB measure makes a substantial difference to the evaluation of provider performance. Our study demonstrates that the provider performance evaluation space can be extended beyond measures of health gain and cost, and that this matters for comparison of providers.

The impact of COVID-19 on mental health service utilisation in England.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on population mental health and the need for mental health services in many countries, while also disrupting critical mental health services and capacity, as a response to the pandemic. Mental health providers were asked to reconfigure wards to accommodate patients with COVID-19, thereby reducing capacity to provide mental health services. This is likely to have widened the existing mismatch between demand and supply of mental health care in the English NHS. We quantify the impact of these rapid service reconfigurations on activity levels for mental health providers in England during the first thirteen months (March 2020-March 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use monthly mental health service utilisation data for a large subset of mental health providers in England from January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2021. We use multivariate regression to estimate the difference between observed and expected utilisation from the start of the pandemic in March 2020. Expected utilisation levels (i.e. the counterfactual) are estimated from trends in utilisation observed during the pre-pandemic period January 1, 2015 to February 31, 2020. We measure utilisation as the monthly number of inpatient admissions, discharges, net admissions (admissions less discharges), length of stay, bed days, number of occupied beds, patients with outpatient appointments, and total outpatient appointments. We also calculate the accumulated difference in utilisation from the start of the pandemic period. There was a sharp reduction in total inpatient admissions and net admissions at the beginning of the pandemic, followed by a return to pre-pandemic levels from September 2020. Shorter inpatient stays are observed over the whole period and bed days and occupied bed counts had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels by March 2021. There is also evidence of greater use of outpatient appointments, potentially as a substitute for inpatient care.

Impact of prevention in primary care on costs in primary and secondary care for people with serious mental illness.

A largely unexplored part of the financial incentive for physicians to participate in preventive care is the degree to which they are the residual claimant from any resulting cost savings. We examine the impact of two preventive activities for people with serious mental illness (care plans and annual reviews of physical health) by English primary care practices on costs in these practices and in secondary care. Using panel two-part models to analyze patient-level data linked across primary and secondary care, we find that these preventive activities in the previous year are associated with cost reductions in the current quarter both in primary and secondary care. We estimate that there are large beneficial externalities for which the primary care physician is not the residual claimant: the cost savings in secondary care are 4.7 times larger than the cost savings in primary care. These activities are incentivized in the English National Health Service but the total financial incentives for primary care physicians to participate were considerably smaller than the total cost savings produced. This suggests that changes to the design of incentives to increase the marginal reward for conducting these preventive activities among patients with serious mental illness could have further increased welfare.

Investigating the relationship between social care supply and healthcare utilization by older people in England.

Since 2010, adult social care spending in England has fallen significantly in real terms whilst demand has risen. Reductions in social care supply may also have impacted demand for NHS services, particularly for those whose care is provided at the interface of the health and care systems. We analyzed a panel dataset of 150 local authorities (councils) to test potential impacts on hospital utilization by people aged 65 and over: emergency admission rates for falls and hip fractures ("front-door" measures); and extended stays of 7 days or longer; and 21 days or longer ("back-door" measures). Changes in social care supply were assessed in two ways: gross current expenditure (per capita 65 and over) adjusted by local labor costs and social care workforce (per capita 18 and over). We ran negative binomial models, controlling for deprivation, ethnicity, age, unpaid care, council class, and year effects. To account for potential endogeneity, we ran instrumental variable regressions and dynamic panel models. Sensitivity analysis explored potential effects of funding for integrated care (the Better Care Fund). There was no consistent evidence that councils with higher per capita spend or higher social care staffing rates had lower hospital admission rates or shorter hospital stays.

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether continuity of care in family practice reduces unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness (SMI). DATA SOURCES: Linked administrative data on family practice and hospital utilization by people with SMI in England, 2007-2014. STUDY DESIGN: This observational cohort study used discrete-time survival analysis to investigate the relationship between continuity of care in family practice and unplanned hospital use: emergency department (ED) presentations, and unplanned admissions for SMI and ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC). The analysis distinguishes between relational continuity and management/ informational continuity (as captured by care plans) and accounts for unobserved confounding by examining deviation from long-term averages. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Individual-level family practice administrative data linked to hospital administrative data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Higher relational continuity was associated with 8-11 percent lower risk of ED presentation and 23-27 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. Care plans were associated with 29 percent lower risk of ED presentation, 39 percent lower risk of SMI admissions, and 32 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Family practice continuity of care can reduce unplanned hospital use for physical and mental health of people with SMI.

Modeling the Economic Impact of Interventions for Older Populations with Multimorbidity: A Method of Linking Multiple Single-Disease Models.

Introduction. Individuals from older populations tend to have more than 1 health condition (multimorbidity). Current approaches to produce economic evidence for clinical guidelines using decision-analytic models typically use a single-disease approach, which may not appropriately reflect the competing risks within a population with multimorbidity. This study aims to demonstrate a proof-of-concept method of modeling multiple conditions in a single decision-analytic model to estimate the impact of multimorbidity on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Methods. Multiple conditions were modeled within a single decision-analytic model by linking multiple single-disease models. Individual discrete event simulation models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for a case study assuming a UK National Health Service perspective. The case study used 3 diseases (heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, and osteoporosis) that were combined within a single linked model. The linked model, with and without correlations between diseases incorporated, simulated the general population aged 45 years and older to compare results in terms of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results. The estimated incremental costs and QALYs for health care interventions differed when 3 diseases were modeled simultaneously (£840; 0.234 QALYs) compared with aggregated results from 3 single-disease models (£408; 0.280QALYs). With correlations between diseases additionally incorporated, both absolute and incremental costs and QALY estimates changed in different directions, suggesting that the inclusion of correlations can alter model results. Discussion. Linking multiple single-disease models provides a methodological option for decision analysts who undertake research on populations with multimorbidity. It also has potential for wider applications in informing decisions on commissioning of health care services and long-term priority setting across diseases and health care programs through providing potentially more accurate estimations of the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Association Between Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Outcomes for People With Serious Mental Illness in England.

OBJECTIVE: Although U.K. and international guidelines recommend monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with serious mental illness is common in clinical practice. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness is scarce. Therefore, the authors estimated the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy relative to monotherapy in terms of health care utilization and mortality. METHODS: Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics, and mortality data from the Office of National Statistics were linked to compile a cohort of patients with serious mental illness in England from 2000 to 2014. The antipsychotic prescribing profile of 17,255 adults who had at least one antipsychotic drug record during the period of observation was constructed from primary care medication records. Survival analysis models were estimated to identify the effect of antipsychotic polypharmacy on the time to first occurrence of each of three outcomes: unplanned hospital admissions (all cause), emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. RESULTS: Relative to monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not associated with increased risk of unplanned hospital admission (hazard ratio [HR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98-1.32), ED visit (HR=0.95; 95% CI=0.80-1.14), or death (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.76-1.37). Relative to not receiving antipsychotic medication, monotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard of unplanned admissions to the hospital and ED visits, but it had no effect on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support current guidelines for antipsychotic monotherapy in routine clinical practice. However, they also suggest that when clinicians have deemed antipsychotic polypharmacy necessary, health care utilization and mortality are not affected.

Incentive schemes to increase dementia diagnoses in primary care in England: a retrospective cohort study of unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: The UK government introduced two financial incentive schemes for primary care to tackle underdiagnosis in dementia: the 3-year Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18) and the 6-month Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The schemes appear to have been effective in boosting dementia diagnosis rates, but their unintended effects are unknown. AIM: To identify and quantify unintended consequences associated with the DES18 and DIS schemes. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort quantitative study of 7079 English primary care practices. METHOD: Potential unintended effects of financial incentive schemes, both positive and negative, were identified from a literature review. A practice-level dataset covering the period 2006/2007 to 2015/2016 was constructed. Difference-in-differences analysis was employed to test the effects of the incentive schemes on quality measures from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF); and four measures of patient experience from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS): patient-centred care, access to care, continuity of care, and the doctor-patient relationship. The researchers controlled for effects of the contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia and for practice characteristics. RESULTS: National practice participation rates in DES18 and DIS were 98.5% and 76% respectively. Both schemes were associated not only with a positive impact on QOF quality outcomes, but also with negative impacts on some patient experience indicators. CONCLUSION: The primary care incentive schemes for dementia appear to have enhanced QOF performance for the dementia review, and have had beneficial spillover effects on QOF performance in other clinical areas. However, the schemes may have had negative impacts on several aspects of patient experience.

Do care plans and annual reviews of physical health influence unplanned hospital utilisation for people with serious mental illness? Analysis of linked longitudinal primary and secondary healthcare records in England.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether two primary care activities that are framed as indicators of primary care quality (comprehensive care plans and annual reviews of physical health) influence unplanned utilisation of hospital services for people with serious mental illness (SMI). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective observational cohort study using linked primary care and hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics) for 5158 patients diagnosed with SMI between April 2006 and March 2014, who attended 213 primary care practices in England that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS: Cox survival models were used to estimate the associations between two primary care quality indicators (care plans and annual reviews of physical health) and the hazards of three types of unplanned hospital utilisation: presentation to accident and emergency departments (A&E), admission for SMI and admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC). RESULTS: Risk of A&E presentation was 13% lower (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98) and risk of admission to hospital for ACSC was 23% lower (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) for patients with a care plan documented in the previous year compared with those without a care plan. Risk of A&E presentation was 19% lower for those who had a care plan documented earlier but not updated in the previous year (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) compared with those without a care plan. Risks of hospital admission for SMI were not associated with care plans, and none of the outcomes were associated with annual reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Care plans documented in primary care for people with SMI are associated with reduced risk of A&E attendance and reduced risk of unplanned admission to hospital for physical health problems, but not with risk of admission for mental health problems. Annual reviews of physical health are not associated with risk of unplanned hospital utilisation.

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In England, two primary care incentive schemes were introduced to increase dementia diagnosis rates to two-thirds of expected levels. This study assesses the effectiveness of these schemes. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences framework to analyse the individual and collective impacts of the incentive schemes: (1) Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18: facilitating timely diagnosis of and support for dementia) and (2) the Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The dataset included 7529 English general practices, of which 7142 were active throughout the 10-year study period (April 2006 to March 2016). We controlled for a range of factors, including a contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia. Our dependent variable was the percentage of expected cases that was recorded on practice dementia registers (the "rate"). RESULTS: From March 2013 to March 2016, the mean rate rose from 51.8% to 68.6%. Both DES18 and DIS had positive and significant effects. In practices participating in the DES18 scheme, the rate increased by 1.44 percentage points more than the rate for non-participants; DIS had a larger effect, with an increase of 3.59 percentage points. These combined effects increased dementia registers nationally by an estimated 40 767 individuals. Had all practices fully participated in both schemes, the corresponding number would have been 48 685. CONCLUSION: The primary care incentive schemes appear to have been effective in closing the gap between recorded and expected prevalence of dementia, but the hospital scheme had no additional discernible effect. This study contributes additional evidence that financial incentives can motivate improved performance in primary care.

Autonomy and performance in the public sector: the experience of English NHS hospitals.

Since 2004, English NHS hospitals have been given the opportunity to acquire a more autonomous status known as a Foundation Trust (FT), whereby regulations and restrictions over financial, management, and organizational matters were reduced in order to create incentives to deliver higher-quality services in the most efficient way. Using difference-in-difference models, we test whether achieving greater autonomy (FT status) improved hospital performance, as proxied by measures of financial management, quality of care, and staff satisfaction. Results provide little evidence that the FT policy per se has made any difference to the performance of hospitals in most of these domains. Our findings have implications for health policy and inform the trend towards granting greater autonomy to public-sector organizations.

Identifying primary care quality indicators for people with serious mental illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI) - which comprises long-term conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychoses - has enormous costs for patients and society. In many countries, people with SMI are treated solely in primary care, and have particular needs for physical care. AIM: The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to create a list of quality indicators relevant to patients with SMI that could be captured using routine data, and which could be used to monitor or incentivise better-quality primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature review, combined with a search of quality indicator databases and guidelines. METHOD: The authors assessed whether indicators could be measured from routine data and the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Out of 1847 papers and quality indicator databases identified, 27 were included, from which 59 quality indicators were identified, covering six domains. Of the 59 indicators, 52 could be assessed using routine data. The evidence base underpinning these indicators was relatively weak, and was primarily based on expert opinion rather than trial evidence. CONCLUSION: With appropriate adaptation for different contexts, and in line with the relative responsibilities of primary and secondary care, use of the quality indicators has the potential to improve care and to improve the physical and mental health of people with SMI. However, before the indicators can be used to monitor or incentivise primary care quality, more robust links need to be established, with improved patient outcomes.

Integrated Care: A Pill for All Ills?

There is an increasing policy emphasis on the integration of care, both within the healthcare sector and also between the health and social care sectors, with the simple aim of ensuring that individuals get the right care, in the right place, at the right time. However, implementing this simple aim is rather more complex. In this editorial, we seek to make sense of this complexity and ask: what does integrated care mean in practice? What are the mechanisms by which it is expected to achieve its aim? And what is the nature of the evidence base around the outcomes delivered?

Risk of Care Home Placement following Acute Hospital Admission: Effects of a Pay-for-Performance Scheme for Dementia.

INTRODUCTION: The Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF, rewards primary care doctors (GPs) in the UK for providing certain types of care. Since 2006, GPs have been paid to identify patients with dementia and to conduct an annual review of their mental and physical health. During the review, the GP also assesses the carer's support needs, including impact of caring, and ensures that services are co-ordinated across care settings. In principle, this type of care should reduce the risk of admission to long-term residential care directly from an acute hospital ward, a phenomenon considered to be indicative of poor quality care. However, this potential effect has not previously been tested. METHODS: Using English data from 2006/07 to 2010/11, we ran multilevel logit models to assess the impact of the QOF review on the risk of care home placement following emergency admission to acute hospital. Emergency admissions were defined for (a) people with a primary diagnosis of dementia and (b) people with dementia admitted for treatment of an ambulatory care sensitive condition. We adjusted for a wide range of potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Over the study period, 19% of individuals admitted to hospital with a primary diagnosis of dementia (N = 31,120) were discharged to a care home; of those admitted for an ambulatory care sensitive condition (N = 139,267), the corresponding figure was 14%. Risk factors for subsequent care home placement included older age, female gender, vascular dementia, incontinence, fall, hip fracture, and number of comorbidities. Better performance on the QOF review was associated with a lower risk of care home placement but only when the admission was for an ambulatory care sensitive condition. CONCLUSIONS: The QOF dementia review may help to reduce the risk of long-term care home placement following acute hospital admission.

How a universal health system reduces inequalities: lessons from England.

BACKGROUND: Provision of universal coverage is essential for achieving equity in healthcare, but inequalities still exist in universal healthcare systems. Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, which has provided universal coverage since 1948, made sustained efforts to reduce health inequalities by strengthening primary care. We provide the first comprehensive assessment of trends in socioeconomic inequalities of primary care access, quality and outcomes during this period. METHODS: Whole-population small area longitudinal study based on 32 482 neighbourhoods of approximately 1500 people in England from 2004/2005 to 2011/2012. We measured slope indices of inequality in four indicators: (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) preventable emergency hospital admissions and (4) mortality from conditions considered amenable to healthcare. RESULTS: Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, there were larger absolute improvements on all indicators in more-deprived neighbourhoods. The modelled gap between the most-deprived and least-deprived neighbourhoods in England decreased by: 193 patients per family doctor (95% CI 173 to 213), 3.29 percentage points of primary care quality (3.13 to 3.45), 0.42 preventable hospitalisations per 1000 people (0.29 to 0.55) and 0.23 amenable deaths per 1000 people (0.15 to 0.31). By 2011/2012, inequalities in primary care supply and quality were almost eliminated, but socioeconomic inequality was still associated with 158 396 preventable hospitalisations and 37 983 deaths amenable to healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the NHS succeeded in substantially reducing socioeconomic inequalities in primary care access and quality, but made only modest reductions in healthcare outcome inequalities.

Determinants of hospital length of stay for people with serious mental illness in England and implications for payment systems: a regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI), which encompasses a set of chronic conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, accounts for 3.4 m (7 %) total bed days in the English NHS. The introduction of prospective payment to reimburse hospitals makes an understanding of the key drivers of length of stay (LOS) imperative. Existing evidence, based on mainly small scale and cross-sectional studies, is mixed. Our study is the first to use large-scale national routine data to track English hospitals' LOS for patients with a main diagnosis of SMI over time to examine the patient and local area factors influencing LOS and quantify the provider level effects to draw out the implications for payment systems. METHODS: We analysed variation in LOS for all SMI admissions to English hospitals from 2006 to 2010 using Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES). We considered patients with a LOS of up to 180 days and estimated Poisson regression models with hospital fixed effects, separately for admissions with one of three main diagnoses: schizophrenia; psychotic and schizoaffective disorder; and bipolar affective disorder. We analysed the independent contribution of potential determinants of LOS including clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of the patient, access to and quality of primary care, and local area characteristics. We examined the degree of unexplained variation in provider LOS. RESULTS: Most risk factors did not have a differential effect on LOS for different diagnostic sub-groups, however we did find some heterogeneity in the effects. Shorter LOS in the pooled model was associated with co-morbid substance or alcohol misuse (4 days), and personality disorder (8 days). Longer LOS was associated with older age (up to 19 days), black ethnicity (4 days), and formal detention (16 days). Gender was not a significant predictor. Patients who self-discharged had shorter LOS (20 days). No association was found between higher primary care quality and LOS. We found large differences between providers in unexplained variation in LOS. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying key determinants of LOS our results contribute to a better understanding of the implications of case-mix to ensure prospective payment systems reflect accurately the resource use within sub-groups of patients with SMI.

Competition in Healthcare: Good, Bad or Ugly?

The role of competition in healthcare is much debated. Despite a wealth of international experience in relation to competition, evidence is mixed and contested and the debate about the potential role for competition is often polarised. This paper considers briefly some of the reasons for this, focusing on what is meant by "competition in healthcare" and why it is more valuable to think about the circumstances in which competition is more and less likely to be a good tool to achieve benefits, rather than whether or not it is "good" or "bad," per se.

Does the quality and outcomes framework reduce psychiatric admissions in people with serious mental illness? A regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) incentivises general practices in England to provide proactive care for people with serious mental illness (SMI) including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses. Better proactive primary care may reduce the risk of psychiatric admissions to hospital, but this has never been tested empirically. METHODS: The QOF data set included 8234 general practices in England from 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. Rates of hospital admissions with primary diagnoses of SMI or bipolar disorder were estimated from national routine hospital data and aggregated to practice level. Poisson regression was used to analyse associations. RESULTS: Practices with higher achievement on the annual review for SMI patients (MH9), or that performed better on either of the two lithium indicators for bipolar patients (MH4 or MH5), had more psychiatric admissions. An additional 1% in achievement rates for MH9 was associated with an average increase in the annual practice admission rate of 0.19% (95% CI 0.10% to 0.28%) or 0.007 patients (95% CI 0.003 to 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The positive association was contrary to expectation, but there are several possible explanations: better quality primary care may identify unmet need for secondary care; higher QOF achievement may not prevent the need for secondary care; individuals may receive their QOF checks postdischarge rather than prior to admission; individuals with more severe SMI may be more likely to be registered with practices with better QOF performance; and QOF may be a poor measure of the quality of care for people with SMI.