Investigating the impact of primary care networks on continuity of care in English general practice: Analysis of interviews with patients and clinicians from a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: In England, primary care networks (PCNs) offer opportunities to improve access to and sustainability of general practice through collaboration between groups of practices to provide care with a broader range of practitioner roles. However, there are concerns that these changes may undermine continuity of care. Our study investigates what the organisational shift to PCNs means for continuity of care. METHODS: The paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews with general practitioners and other healthcare professionals (HCPs, n = 33) in 19 practices in five PCNs, and their patients (n = 35). Three patient cohorts within each participating practice were recruited, based on anticipated higher or lower needs for continuity of care: patients over 65 years with polypharmacy, patients with anxiety or depression and 'working age' adults aged between 18 and 45 years. FINDINGS: Patients and clinicians perceived changes to continuity in PCNs in our study. Larger-scale care provision in PCNs required better care coordination and information-sharing processes, aimed at improving care for 'vulnerable' patients in target groups. However, new working arrangements and ways of delivering care in PCNs undermine HCPs' ability to maintain continuity through ongoing relationships with patients. Patients experience this in terms of reduced availability of their preferred clinician, inefficiencies in care and unfamiliarity of new staff, roles and processes. CONCLUSIONS: New practitioners need to be effectively integrated to support effective team-based care. However, for patients, especially those not deemed 'vulnerable', this may not be sufficient to counter the loss of relationship with their practice. Therefore, caution is required in relation to designating patients as in need of, or not in need of continuity. Rather, continuity for all patients could be maintained through a dynamic understanding of the need for it as fluctuating and situational and by supporting clinicians to provide follow-up care. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPI): A PPI group was recruited and consulted during the study for feedback on the study design, recruitment materials and interpretation of findings.

Exploring whether primary care networks can contribute to the national goal of reducing health inequalities: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Significant health inequalities exist in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), comprised of GP practices, were introduced in England in 2019 with funding linked to membership. PCNs have been tasked with tackling health inequalities. AIM: To consider how the design and introduction of PCNs might influence their ability to tackle health inequalities. DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential mixed-methods study of PCNs in England. METHOD: Linear regression of annual PCN-allocated funding per workload-weighted patient on income deprivation score from 2019-2023 was used. Qualitative interviews and observations of PCNs and PCN staff were undertaken across seven PCN sites in England (July 2020-March 2022). RESULTS: Across 1243 networks in 2019-2020, a 10% higher level of income deprivation resulted in £0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] = £0.25 to £0.37), 4.50%, less funding per weighted patient. In 2022-2023, the same difference in deprivation resulted in £0.16 (95% CI = £0.11 to £0.21), 0.60%, more funding. Qualitative interviews highlighted that, although there were requirements for PCNs to tackle health inequalities, the policy design, and PCN internal relationships and maturity, shaped and sometimes restricted how PCNs approached this task locally. CONCLUSION: Allocated PCN funding has become more pro-poor over time, suggesting that the need to account for deprivation within funding models is understood by policymakers. The following additional approaches have been highlighted that could support PCNs to tackle inequalities: better management support; encouragement and support to redistribute funding internally to support practices serving more deprived populations; and greater specificity in service requirements.

Implementing the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme in seven English Primary Care Networks: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) provides funding to Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in England to recruit additional staff into specified roles. The intention was to support general practice by recruiting an extra 26 000 staff by 2024, increasing access and easing workload pressures. AIM: To explore the establishment of the ARRS as part of PCNs' development to understand their role in supporting general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A longitudinal, qualitative case study involving seven geographically dispersed PCNs across England. METHOD: Data were collected from July 2020 to March 2022, including 91 semi-structured interviews and 87 h of meeting observations. Transcripts were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Implementation of the ARRS was variable across the study sites, but most shared similar experiences and concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the introduction of the new roles, and significant variability was found in modes of employment. Cross-cutting issues included: the need for additional space to accommodate new staff; the inflexibility of aspects of the scheme, including reinvestment of unspent funds; and the need for support and oversight of employed staff. Perceived benefits of the ARRS include improved patient care and the potential to save GP time. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest the ARRS has potential to fulfil its objective of supporting and improving access to general practice. However, attention to operational requirements including appropriate funding, estates, and management of staff is important if this is to be realised, as is clarity for the scheme post-contract end in 2024.

Primary care networks as a means of supporting primary care: findings from qualitative case study-based evaluation in the English NHS.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate primary care networks (PCNs) in the English National Health Service. We ask: How are PCNs constituted to meet their defined goals? What factors can be discerned as affecting their ability to deliver benefits to the community, the network as a whole and individual members? What outcomes or outputs are associated with PCNs so far? We draw policy lessons for PCN design and oversight, and consider the utility of the chosen evaluative framework. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative case studies in seven PCN in England, chosen for maximum variety around geography, rurality and population deprivation. Study took place between May 2019 and December 2022. PARTICIPANTS: PCN members, staff employed in additional roles and local managers. Ninety-one semistructured interviews and approximately 87 hours of observations were undertaken remotely. Interview transcripts and observational field notes were analysed together using a framework approach. Initial codes were derived from our evaluation framework, with inductive coding of new concepts during the analysis. RESULTS: PCNs have been successfully established across England, with considerable variation in structure and operation. Progress is variable, with a number of factors affecting this. Good managerial support was helpful for PCN development. The requirement to work together to meet the specific threat of the global pandemic did, in many cases, generate a virtuous cycle by which the experience of working together built trust and legitimacy. The internal dynamics of networks require attention. Pre-existing strong relationships provided a significant advantage. While policy cannot legislate to create such relationships, awareness of their presence/absence is important. CONCLUSIONS: Networked approaches to service delivery are popular in many health systems. Our use of an explicit evaluation framework supports the extrapolation of our findings to networks elsewhere. We found the framework to be useful in structuring our study but suggest some modifications for future use.

Evaluating primary care networks in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care networks (PCNs) are claimed to be an effective model to organise and deliver primary healthcare through collaborative relationships and effective coordination of primary care activities. Though increasingly implemented in different contexts, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of PCNs in low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs). OBJECTIVE: Our scoping review aims to understand how PCNs in LLMICs have been conceptualised, implemented and analysed in the literature and further explores the evidence of the effectiveness of these networks. METHODS: We structured our review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews and recommendations by Levac et al. We also used the population, concept and context (PCC) guide of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews to define the search strategy. The identified documents were then mapped, using Cunningham's evaluation framework for health networks, to understand how PCNs are conceived in LLMIC settings. RESULTS: We identified 20 documents describing PCNs in five LLMICs. The selected documents showed differing forms and complexities of networks, with a majority resourced by government, non-governmental and donor entities. Most networks were mandated, and established with defined goals, although these were not always understood by stakeholders. Unlike PCNs in developed settings, the scoping review did not identify integration of care as a major goal for the establishment of PCNs in LLMICs. Network evaluation relationships, outputs and outcomes also varied across the five networks in the identified documents, and perceptions of effectiveness differed across stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: PCNs in LLMICs benefit from clearly stated goals and measurable outcomes, which facilitates evaluation. In order to maximise the benefits, careful attention to the aspects of network design and operation is required. Future research work could shed light on some of the missing pieces of evidence on their effectiveness by, for example, considering differential consequences of modes of network establishment and operation, including unintended consequences in the systems within which they reside, and evaluating long-term implications.

Non-Lung Solid Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2-Positive Donors to Uninfected Recipients.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence on the risk of donor-recipient transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant recipients. Initial impressions suggest non-lung solid organs may be safely transplanted from SARS-CoV-2-positive donors without risk of viral transmission. METHODS: We reviewed clinical results of transplants in which SARS-CoV-2-negative recipients received non-lung solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-positive donors at a single transplant center. No prisoners were used in this study, and participants were neither coerced nor paid. The manuscript was created in compliance with the Helsinki Congress and the Declaration of Istanbul. RESULTS: Between June 2021 and January 2023, we transplanted 26 solid organs, including 13 kidneys, 8 livers, 3 hearts, and 1 simultaneous heart and kidney, from 23 SARS-CoV-2-positive donors into 25 SARS-CoV-2 negative recipients. Two of the recipients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction after transplantation, but otherwise, patients had no SARS-CoV-2-related complications, and all patients to date are alive with excellent allograft function. CONCLUSION: Transplantation of non-lung solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-positive donors into uninfected recipients can be safely performed without adverse effects from SARS-CoV-2.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Is Associated With Reduced Hospital Length of Stay after Urgent or Emergency Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery at an Urban, Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis With Propensity Score Matching.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) was associated with reduced length of stay (LOS) after urgent or emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of an institutional database for urgent or emergency isolated CABG before versus after ERAS. Propensity matching identified comparable subpopulations pre- versus post-ERAS. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate LOS. SETTING: At a tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,012 patients undergoing urgent or emergent CABG-346 from 2016 to 2017 (pre-ERAS), and 666 from 2018 to 2020 (post-ERAS). Emergent CABG was performed within 24 hours, and urgent CABG was performed during the same hospitalization to reduce clinical risk. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Propensity-matched post-ERAS (n = 565) versus pre-ERAS patients (n = 330) demonstrated reduced LOS (9 [8-13] v (10 [8-14] days p = 0.015), increased likelihood of extubation within 6 hours (46.0% v 35.8%, p = 0.003), shorter ventilation time (6.3 [5.1-10.2] v (7.2 [5.4-12.2] hours, p = 0.003), reduced morphine milligram equivalent use on postoperative days 1 and 2 (69.6 ± 62.2 v 99.0 ± 61.6, p < 0.001), and increased intraoperative ketamine use (58.8% v 35.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences regarding reintubation, intensive care unit readmission, or 30-day morbidity. Adjusted segmental regression (n = 1,012) for LOS demonstrated reduced mean LOS of approximately 2 days after ERAS (ß2 coefficient -1.943 [-3.766 to -0.121], p = 0.037), with stable trends for mean LOS and no change in slope throughout the pre-ERAS and post-ERAS time periods. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery after surgery was associated with reduced LOS after urgent or emergency CABG without adverse effects on prolonged ventilation, reintubation, intensive care unit readmission, or 30-day outcomes.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Is Associated With Improved Outcomes and Reduced Racial and Ethnic Disparities After Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis With Propensity-Score Matching.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol implementation was associated with improved outcomes and decreased racial and ethnic outcome disparities after isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of an institutional CABG database with propensity-score matching. SETTING: At a single tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand seven hundred thirty-five patients undergoing isolated CABG: 656 patients from 2016 to 2017 (pre-ERAS) and 1,079 patients from 2018 to 2020 (post-ERAS). Each patient cohort was divided into a White subgroup and a racial and ethnic minorities (Minorities) subgroup. INTERVENTIONS: None MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Propensity-matched post-ERAS patients (n = 584) compared to pre-ERAS patients (n = 584) demonstrated reductions in total length of stay (LOS) (median [interquartile range]): (7 [5-10] v 8 [6-11.5] days, p = .006), postoperative LOS (5 [4-7] v 5 [4-7] days, p = .001), total ventilation time (6.1 [4.8-9.5] v 6.6 [5.2-10.9] hours, p = .004), postoperative morphine milligram equivalents (mean ± standard deviation: 68.6 ± 57.5 v 100.0 ± 59.4, p < .001), and increased likelihood of early extubation (48.8% v 42.3%, p = .026); the Minorities subgroup demonstrated reductions in likelihood of intensive care unit (ICU) readmission (1.3% v 8.1%, p = .012) and postoperative morphine milligram equivalents (73.6 ± 64.0 v 107.8 ± 71.9, p < .001). Logistic regression models demonstrated that disparities in ICU readmission and postoperative LOS between White and Minorities patients were eliminated post-ERAS. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS for isolated CABG surgery was associated with reduced total and postoperative LOS, reduced total ventilation time, and increased early extubation for all patients, as well as reduced ICU readmission for the Minorities subgroup. ERAS implementation was associated with reduced disparities between White and racial and ethnic minority patients for ICU readmission and postoperative LOS.

Post Heart Transplantation Outcomes of Patients Supported on Biventricular Mechanical Support.

With the implementation of the new heart transplant (HT) allocation system, patients requiring biventricular support systems have the highest priority, a shorter waitlist time, and a higher frequency of HT. However, the short-term and long-term outcomes of such patients are often disputed. Hence, we examined the outcomes of these patients who underwent HT before change in allocation scheme. Additionally, we compared post-HT outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with other nondischargeable biventricular (BiVAD) supported patients. We identified adult ECMO or BiVAD supported HT recipients between 2000 and 2018 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. We compared survival with the Kaplan-Meier method. Using overlap propensity score weighting, we constructed Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine the risk-adjusted influence of BiVAD versus ECMO on survival. Of the 730 patients HT recipients; 528 (72.3%) and 202 (27.7%) were bridged with BiVAD and ECMO, respectively. For BiVAD versus ECMO patients, the 30-day, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year mortality rates were 8.0% versus 14.4%, 16.3% versus 21.3%, 22.4% versus 25.3%, and 26.3% versus 25.7%, respectively. Risk-adjusted post-HT survival of BiVAD and ECMO patients at 30-day (HR 1.24 [95% CI, 0.68-2.27]; P = 0.4863), 1-year (HR 1.29 [95% CI, 0.80-2.09]; P = 0.3009), 3-year (HR 1.27 [95% CI, 0.83-1.94]; P = 0.2801), and 5-year (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 0.90-2.05; P = 0.1501) were similar. Around three-fourth of the ECMO or BiVAD supported patients were alive at 5-years post-HT. The short-term and long-term post-HT survivals of groups were comparable.

Clinical outcomes of older adults listed for heart transplantation in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if older age (>70 years) should be a relative contraindication for heart transplantation, we evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of patients with age ≥70 years listed for heart transplantation; and whether post-transplantation survival was inferior to younger counterparts. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: The scientific registry of transplant recipients (SRTR). PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) listed for heart transplantation in the SRTR between 2000 and 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Heart transplantation. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics and outcomes were compared for adults ≥70 years and <70 years. We evaluated waitlist mortality and post-transplant 1-year and 5-year survivals. RESULTS: The study included 57,285 patients (age range 18-79 years) listed for heart transplantation; 1203 (2.1%) age ≥70 years. Of these, 37,135 patients underwent heart transplantation; 806 (2.2%) were age ≥70 years. Yearly listing of those age ≥70 years has consistently increased from 2.5% (n = 30) in 2000 to 11% (n = 132) in 2017 (p < 0.01). As compared with the age <70 years group, those ≥70 years had a similar risk of death while waiting (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [HR] 0.68-1.08; p = 0.19) but were more likely to be transplanted (SHR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.48; p < 0.01). Among the older patients, the overall post-transplant 1- and 5-year mortality rate was 10.4% and 19.2%, respectively. Older recipients had lower unadjusted survival compared with younger recipients (log-rank p = 0.03). However, after adjustment for relevant covariates, there was no significant difference in 5-year mortality between both groups (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91-1.254; p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant survival up to 5 years among patients of age ≥70 years was similar to that of younger recipients. Older patients who received heart transplantation appear to have lower risk features but receive hearts from higher risk donors. Chronologic age alone should not constitute a contraindication for heart transplantation, although careful patient selection criteria should be applied.

Exploring commissioners' understandings of early primary care network development: qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care networks (PCNs) are financially incentivised groupings of general practices in the English NHS. Their purpose is to deliver a number of policy goals set out in The NHS Long Term Plan. Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have a role in their establishment, support, and oversight. AIM: To explore commissioners' perspectives on the early development of PCNs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of CCG staff using telephone interviews. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 37 CCG employees involved in PCN establishment. Interviewees were asked about local PCNs' characteristics, factors shaping development and form, activities to date, challenges and benefits, and their CCGs' relationship with PCNs. Interviewee responses were summarised within a matrix and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three meta-themes were identified: the multifaceted role of the commissioner, tensions between PCN policy and locally commissioned services, and engaging the broader system. Interviewees reported that the policy potentially favours those PCNs working from a 'blank slate' and does not sufficiently account for the fact some GP practices and wider system organisations have been doing similar work already. The prescriptive, contractual nature of the policy has led to local challenges, trying to ensure that local good practices are not lost during implementation. Interviewees also considered an important part of their work to be protecting PCNs from the weight of expectations placed on them. CONCLUSION: CCGs are well placed to understand the complexities of local systems and to facilitate PCNs and working practices between wider system partners. It is important that this local role is not lost as CCGs continue to merge and cover larger geographical populations.

Variability in size and characteristics of primary care networks in England: observational study.

BACKGROUND: General practices in England have been encouraged by national policy to work together on a larger scale by creating primary care networks (PCNs). Policy guidance recommended that they should serve populations of 30 000-50 000 people to perform effectively. AIM: To describe variation in the size and characteristics of PCNs and their populations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis in England. METHOD: Using published information from January 2020, PCNs were identified that contained <30 000, between 30 000-50 000, and >50 000 people. Percentiles were calculated to describe variation in size and population characteristics. PCN composition within each commissioning region was also examined. RESULTS: In total, 6758 practices had formed 1250 PCNs. Seven hundred and twenty-six (58%) PCNs had the recommended population of 30 000-50 000 people. Eighty-four (7%) PCNs contained <30 000 people. Four hundred and forty (35%) PCNs contained >50 000 people. Thirty-four (3%) PCNs comprised just one practice and 77 (6%) PCNs contained >10 practices. Some PCNs contained more than double the proportions of older people and people with chronic conditions compared to other PCNs. More than half of the population were from very socioeconomically deprived areas in 172 (14%) PCNs. Only six (4%) of the 135 commissioning regions ensured all PCNs were in the recommended population range. All practices had joined a single PCN in three (2%) commissioning regions. CONCLUSION: More than 40% of the PCNs were not of the recommended size, and there was substantial variation in their composition and characteristics. This high variability between PCNs is a risk to their future performance.

Exploring the multiple policy objectives for primary care networks: a qualitative interview study with national policy stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: English general practice is suffering a workforce crisis, with general practitioners retiring early and trainees reluctant to enter the profession. To address this, additional funding has been offered, but only through participation in collaborations known as primary care networks (PCNs). This study explored national policy objectives underpinning PCNs and the mechanisms expected to help achieve these, from the perspective of those driving the policy. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews and policy document analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: National-level policy maker and stakeholder interviewees (n=16). Policy document analysis of the Network Contract Direct Enhanced Service draft service specifications. ANALYSIS: Interviews were transcribed, coded and organised thematically according to policy objectives and mechanisms. Thematic data were organised into a matrix so prominent elements can be identified and emphasised accordingly. Themes were considered alongside objectives embedded in PCN draft service delivery requirements. RESULTS: Three themes of policy objectives and associated mechanisms were identified: (1) supporting general practice, (2) place-based interorganisational collaboration and (3) primary care 'voice'. Interviewees emphasised and sequenced themes differently, suggesting meeting objectives for one was necessary to realise another. Interviewees most closely linked to primary care emphasised the importance of theme 1. The objectives embedded in draft service delivery requirements primarily emphasised theme 2. CONCLUSIONS: These policy objectives are not mutually exclusive but may imply different approaches to prioritising investment or necessitate more explicit temporal sequencing, with the stabilisation of a struggling primary care sector probably needing to occur before meaningful engagement with other community service providers can be achieved or a 'collective voice' is agreed. Multiple objectives create space for stakeholders to feel dissatisfied when implementation details do not match expectations, as the negative reaction to draft service delivery requirements illustrates. Our study offers policy makers suggestions about how confidence in the policy might be restored by crafting delivery requirements so all groups see opportunities to meet favoured objectives.

Incidental COVID-19 in a heart-kidney transplant recipient with malnutrition and recurrent infections: Implications for the SARS-CoV-2 immune response.

The clinical course and outcomes of immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients, with COVID-19 remain unclear. It has been postulated that a substantial portion of the disease burden seems to be mediated by the host immune activation to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Herein, we present a simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHKT) recipient who was hospitalized for the management of respiratory failure from volume overload complicated by failure to thrive, multiple opportunistic infections, and open non-healing wounds in the setting of worsening renal dysfunction weeks prior to the first case of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in the state of Connecticut. After his third endotracheal intubation, routine nucleic acid testing (NAT) for SARS-CoV-2, in anticipation of a planned tracheostomy, was positive. His hemodynamics, respiratory status, and ventilator requirements remained stable without any worsening for 4 weeks until he had a negative NAT test. It is possible that the immunocompromised status of our patient may have prevented significant immune activation leading up to clinically significant cytokine storm that could have resulted in acute respiratory distress syndrome and multisystem organ failure.

Exploring the impacts of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act reforms to commissioning on clinical activity in the English NHS: a mixed methods study of cervical screening.

OBJECTIVES: Explore the impact of changes to commissioning introduced in England by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) on cervical screening activity in areas identified empirically as particularly affected organisationally by the reforms. METHODS: Qualitative followed by quantitative methods. Qualitative: semi-structured interviews (with NHS commissioners, managers, clinicians, senior administrative staff from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), local authorities, service providers), observations of commissioning meetings in two metropolitan areas of England. Quantitative: triple-difference analysis of national administrative data. Variability in the expected effects of HSCA on commissioning was measured by comparing CCGs working with one local authority with CCGs working with multiple local authorities. To control for unmeasured confounders, differential changes over time in cervical screening rates (among women, 25-64 years) between CCGs more and less likely to have been affected by HSCA commissioning organisational change were compared with another outcome-unassisted birth rates-largely unaffected by HSCA changes. RESULTS: Interviewees identified that cervical screening commissioning and provision was more complex and 'fragmented', with responsibilities less certain, following the HSCA. Interviewees predicted this would reduce cervical screening rates in some areas more than others. Quantitative findings supported these predictions. Areas where CCGs dealt with multiple local authorities experienced a larger decline in cervical screening rates (1.4%) than those dealing with one local authority (1.0%). Over the same period, unassisted deliveries decreased by 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arrangements for commissioning and delivering cervical screening were disrupted and made more complex by the HSCA. Areas most affected saw a greater decline in screening rates than others. The fact that this was identified qualitatively and then confirmed quantitatively strengthens this finding. The study suggests large-scale health system reforms may have unintended consequences, and that complex commissioning arrangements may be problematic.

The impact of a combinatorial digital and organisational intervention on the management of long-term conditions in UK primary care: a non-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Better management of long-term conditions remains a policy priority, with a focus on improving outcomes and reducing use of expensive hospital services. A number of interventions have been tested, but many have failed to show benefit in rigorous comparative research. In 2016, the NHS Test Beds scheme was launched to implement and test interventions combining digital technologies and pathway redesign in routine health care settings, with each intervention comprising multiple innovations to better realise benefit from their 'combinatorial' effect. We present the evaluation of one of the NHS Test Beds, which combined risk stratification algorithms, practice-based quality improvement and health monitoring and coaching to improve management of long-term conditions in a single health economy in the north-west of England. METHODS: The NHS Test Bed was implemented in one clinical commissioning group in the north-west of England (patient population 235,800 served by 36 general practices). Routine administrative data on hospital use (the primary outcome) and a selection of secondary outcomes (data from both hospital and primary care) were collected in the intervention site, and from a comparator area in the same region. We used difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes in the NHS Test Bed area and the comparator after initiation of the combinatorial intervention. RESULTS: Tests confirmed the existence of parallel trends in the intervention and comparator sites for hospital outcomes for the period April 2016 to March 2017, and for some of the planned primary care outcomes. Based on 10 months of post-intervention secondary care data and 13 months post-intervention primary care data, we found no significant impact on primary outcomes between the intervention and comparator site, and a significant impact on only one secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: A combinatorial digital and organisational intervention to improve the management of long-term conditions was implemented across a whole health economy, but we found no evidence of a positive impact on health care utilisation outcomes in hospital and primary care.

Association Between Time-in-Therapeutic Tacrolimus Range and Early Rejection After Heart Transplant.

BACKGROUND: Historically, there is perceived pressure to achieve therapeutic levels of tacrolimus quickly after heart transplant (HT). We evaluated the association between time within therapeutic tacrolimus range and time to therapeutic trough and rejection in the 30 days following HT. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult HT patients receiving immunosuppression. Goal trough tacrolimus levels were 10-15 ng/ml. Surveillance endomyocardial biopsies were performed weekly for 4 weeks. Outcomes included the effect of time to and time-in-therapeutic tacrolimus range (Rosendaal method) on 30-day clinical rejection, 1R/1B, and 2R or higher histologic occurrences. RESULTS: We reviewed 67 HT patients (median age 58.8 yrs). For clinical rejection versus no-rejection groups, the median (25th, 75th percentile) time to therapeutic tacrolimus levels was 9.5 (8, 12.3) days versus 9.0 (7, 13) days (p=0.623). The median time-in-therapeutic tacrolimus range was 34.1% (23.2, 42.2) versus 36.2% (19.9, 51.2), respectively (p=0.512). Similarly, we observed no significant differences in time to and time-in-therapeutic tacrolimus range in patients who developed grade 1R/1B (p=0.650 and p=0.725) or grade 2R or higher histology (p=0.632 and p=0.933). CONCLUSIONS: Our small single-center analysis suggests that neither time to nor time in therapeutic tacrolimus range predicted acute rejection within 30 days of HT.