Rapid evaluation of the Special Measures for Quality and challenged provider regimes: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Health-care organisations in England that are rated as inadequate for leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality regime to receive support and oversight. A 'watch list' of challenged providers that are at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality also receive support. Knowledge is limited about whether or not the support interventions drive improvements in quality, the costs of the support interventions and whether or not the support interventions strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. Objective: To analyse the responses of trusts to the implementation of (1) interventions for Special Measures for Quality trusts and (2) interventions for challenged provider trusts to determine their impact on these organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements. Design: This was rapid research comprising five interrelated workstreams: (1) a literature review using systematic methods; (2) an analysis of policy documents and interviews at the national level; (3) eight multisite, mixed-methods trust case studies; (4) an analysis of national performance and workforce indicators; and (5) an economic analysis. Results: The Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were intended to be 'support' programmes. Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes had an emotional impact on staff. Perceptions of NHS Improvement interventions were mixed overall. Senior leadership teams were a key driver of change, with strong clinical input being vital. Local systems have a role in improvement. Trusts focus efforts to improve across multiple domains. Internal and external factors contribute to positive performance trajectories. Nationally, only 15.8% of Special Measures for Quality trusts exited the regime in 24 months. Entry into Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes resulted in changes in quality indicators (such the number of patients waiting in emergency departments for more than 4 hours, mortality and the number of delayed transfers of care) that were more positive than national trends. The trends in staff sickness and absence improved after trusts left Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes. There was some evidence that staff survey results improved. No association was found between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes and referral to treatment times or cancer treatment waiting times. NHS Improvement spending in case study trusts was mostly directed at interventions addressing 'training on cultural change' (33.6%), 'workforce quality and safety' (21.7%) and 'governance and assurance' (18.4%). The impact of Special Measures for Quality on financial stability was equivocal; most trusts exiting Special Measures for Quality experienced the same financial stability before and after exiting. Limitations: The rapid research design and 1-year time frame precludes longitudinal observations of trusts and local systems. The small number of indicators limited the quantitative analysis of impact. Measurement of workforce effects was limited by data availability. Conclusions: Empirical evidence of positive impacts of Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were identified; however, perceptions were mixed. Key lessons were that (1) time is needed to implement and embed changes; (2) ways to mitigate emotional costs and stigma are needed; (3) support strategies should be more trust specific; (4) poor organisational performance needs to be addressed within local systems; (5) senior leadership teams with stability, strong clinical input and previous Special Measures for Quality experience helped to enact change; (6) organisation-wide quality improvement strategies and capabilities are needed; (7) staff engagement and an open-listening culture promote continuous learning and a quality improvement 'mindset', which is critical for sustainable improvement; and (8) consideration of the level of sustainable funds required to improve patients' outcomes is needed. Future work: Future work could include evaluating recent changes to the regimes, the role of local systems and longitudinal approaches. Study registration: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131024). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

When health-care trusts in England have serious failings in the quality of care that they provide, they can be placed in 'Special Measures for Quality' and receive additional support from the NHS. There is also a list of 'challenged providers' at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality that receive support. In January 2019, of the 234 trusts in England, one-quarter had at some point been a challenged provider and/or entered Special Measures for Quality. We studied how trusts responded to entering the Special Measures for Quality or challenged provider regimes. We wanted to understand if the support that the trusts receive can help the trust to improve the quality of care provided to patients. We did this by reviewing the relevant literature; speaking to a range of staff in eight trusts and nearby health organisations; analysing costs; and observing meetings in four of these trusts. We also compared national performance information between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts and non-Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts. We found that when a trust enters the Special Measures for Quality regime there is often an emotional impact on staff, who may experience low morale. Some staff thought that their trust received the right type of support, but others saw Special Measures for Quality as heavy-handed scrutiny or punishment. With hindsight, Special Measures for Quality was sometimes viewed more positively, as a pathway to make changes that were needed. Looking at all trusts in England, we found that when trusts entered Special Measures for Quality or became challenged providers they started to get better at seeing emergency department patients within 4 hours and reduced avoidable deaths. We also found that some parts of the staff survey results improved. We found that staff need time and space to make changes. Looking after staff and having a leadership and culture that supports continuous learning are important for making improvements. Regional health-care systems and local organisations have an important role to play in supporting trusts to make improvements.

Impact on all-cause mortality of a case prediction and prevention intervention designed to reduce secondary care utilisation: findings from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Health coaching services could help to reduce emergency healthcare utilisation for patients targeted proactively by a clinical prediction model (CPM) predicting patient likelihood of future hospitalisations. Such interventions are designed to empower patients to confidently manage their own health and effectively utilise wider resources. Using CPMs to identify patients, rather than prespecified criteria, accommodates for the dynamic hospital user population and for sufficient time to provide preventative support. However, it is unclear how this care model would negatively impact survival. METHODS: Emergency Department (ED) attenders and hospital inpatients between 2015 and 2019 were automatically screened for their risk of hospitalisation within 6 months of discharge using a locally trained CPM on routine data. Those considered at risk and screened as suitable for the intervention were contacted for consent and randomised to one-to-one telephone health coaching for 4-6 months, led by registered health professionals, or routine care with no contact after randomisation. The intervention involved motivational guidance, support for self-care, health education, and coordination of social and medical services. Co-primary outcomes were emergency hospitalisation and ED attendances, which will be reported separately. Mortality at 24 months was a safety endpoint. RESULTS: Analysis among 1688 consented participants (35% invitation rate from the CPM, median age 75 years, 52% female, 1139 intervention, 549 control) suggested no significant difference in overall mortality between treatment groups (HR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.62, 1.08), pr(HR<1=0.92), but did suggest a significantly lower mortality in men aged >75 years (HR (95% CI): 0.57 (0.37, 0.84), number needed to treat=8). Excluding one site unable to adopt a CPM indicated stronger impact for this patient subgroup (HR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.26, 0.76)). CONCLUSIONS: Early mortality in men aged >75 years may be reduced by supporting individuals at risk of unplanned hospitalisation with a clear outreach, out-of-hospital nurse-led, telephone-based coaching care model.

Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Providers: Study Protocol for Evaluating the Impact of Improvement Interventions in NHS Trusts.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations in England rated as inadequate in terms of leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality (SMQ) regime to receive increased support and oversight. There is also a 'watch list' of challenged National Health Service (NHS) providers at risk of going into SMQ that receive support. There is limited knowledge about whether the interventions used to deliver this support drive improvements in quality, their costs, and whether they strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. The study will seek to determine how provider organisations respond to these interventions, and whether and how these interventions impact organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements over time. METHODS: This is a multi-site, mixed methods study. We will carry out interviews at national level to understand the programme theory underpinning the interventions. We will conduct 8 NHS case studies to explore the impact and implementation of the interventions that form part of the SMQ and challenged providers programme. We will use a conceptual framework based on models of organisational readiness for change and draw on board maturity research for implementing quality improvement. We will also review the use of quantitative metrics and data for tracking the progress of improvements in quality of care and sustainability upon leaving SMQ, as well as the costs and benefits of the interventions through a cost-consequence analysis (CCA). DISCUSSION: High-quality interventions that successfully support struggling healthcare organisations are essential and an issue that is an international concern. Our study will allow a greater understanding of the programme theory, impact, and staff views and experiences of the SMQ and challenged providers regime. Formative feedback will be reported to key stakeholders.

Association of quality of paediatric epilepsy care with mortality and unplanned hospital admissions among children and young people with epilepsy in England: a national longitudinal data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about variation in care quality and outcomes among children and young people with epilepsies in England. We aimed to investigate the association between quality of paediatric care, hospital admissions, and all-cause deaths among epilepsy patients. METHODS: In this longitudinal data linkage study of paediatric epilepsy services in England, we linked unit-level data from round 1 (2009-11) and round 2 (2013-14) of the Epilepsy12 national clinical audit, with death registrations from the UK Office for National Statistics and data for unplanned hospital admissions from Hospital Episode Statistics. We investigated the association between unit-level performance in involving a paediatrician with epilepsy expertise, an epilepsy specialist nurse, and a paediatric neurologist (where appropriate) in round 1 and the proportion of adolescents (aged 10-18 years) with epilepsy admitted to each unit who subsequently died during the study period (April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2015). We also investigated whether change in Epilepsy12 performance between the two audit rounds was associated with changes in the standardised ratio of observed-to-expected unplanned epilepsy admissions over the same period. FINDINGS: In 99 units with data for the analyses relating to paediatricians with epilepsy expertise and epilepsy specialist nurses, 134 (7%) of 1795 patients died during the study period, 88 (5%) of whom died after the transition to adult service. In 55 units with data for the analyses relating to paediatric neurologists, 79 (7%) of 1164 patients died, 54 (5%) of whom did so after the transition. In regression models adjusting for population, unit, and hospital activity characteristics, absolute reductions in total mortality risk (6·4 percentage points, 95% CI 0·1-12·7) and mortality risk after transition (5·7 percentage points, 0·6-10·8) were found when comparing units where all versus no eligible patients were seen by a paediatric neurologist. Units where all eligible patients were seen by a paediatric neurologist were estimated to have absolute reductions of 4·6 percentage points (0·3-8·9) in total mortality and of 4·6 percentage points (1·2-8·0) in post-transition mortality, compared with units where no or some eligible patients were seen by a paediatric neurologist. There was no significant association between performance on being seen by an epilepsy specialist nurse or by a paediatrician with epilepsy expertise and mortality. In units where access to an epilepsy specialist nurse decreased, the standardised ratio of epilepsy admissions increased by a mean of 0·21 (0·01-0·42). INTERPRETATION: Among adolescents with epilepsy, greater involvement of tertiary specialists in paediatric care is associated with decreased all-cause mortality in the period after transition to adult services. Reduced access to an epilepsy specialist nurse was associated with an increase in paediatric epilepsy admissions. FUNDING: The Health Foundation.

Observational study to determine the utility of hospital administrative data to support case finding of English patients at higher risk of severe healthcare-related harm.

OBJECTIVES: To identify ways of using routine hospital data to improve the efficiency of retrospective reviews of case records for identifying avoidable severe harm DESIGN: Development and testing of thresholds and criteria for two indirect indicators of healthcare-related harm (long length of stay (LOS) and emergency readmission) to determine the yield of specified harms coded in Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). SETTING: Acute National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: HES for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), bowel cancer surgery and hip replacement admissions from 2014 to 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Case-mix-adjusted linear regression models were used to determine expected LOS. Different thresholds were examined to determine the association with harm. Screening criteria for readmission included time to readmission, length of readmission and diagnoses in initial admission and readmission. The association with harm was examined for each criterion. RESULTS: The proportions of AMI cases with a harm code increased from 14% among all cases to 47% if a threshold of three times the expected LOS was used. For hip replacement the respective increase was from 10% to 51%. However as the number of patients at these higher thresholds was small, the overall proportion of harm identified is relatively small (15%, 19%, 9% and 8% among AMI, urgent bowel surgery, elective bowel surgery and hip replacement cohorts, respectively). Selection of the time to readmission had an effect on the yield of harms but this varied with condition. At least 50% of surgical patients had a harm code if readmitted within 7 days compared with 21% of patients with AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach would select a substantial number of patients for case record review. Many of these cases would contain no evidence of healthcare-related harm. In practice, Trusts may choose how many reviews it is feasible to do in advance and then select random samples of cases that satisfy the screening criteria.

Use of age-specific hospital catchment populations to investigate geographical variation in inpatient admissions for children and young people in England: retrospective, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a method for calculating age-specific hospital catchment populations (HCPs) for children and young people (CYP) in England. To show how these methods allow geographical variation in hospital activity to be investigated and addressed more effectively. DESIGN: Retrospective, secondary analysis of existing national datasets. SETTING: Inpatient care of CYP (0-18 years) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data were accessed for all inpatient admissions (elective and emergency) for CYP from birth to 18 years, 364 days, for 2011/2012-2014/2015. In 2014/2015, 857 112 admissions were analysed, from an eligible population of approximately 11.9 million CYP. OUTCOME MEASURES: For each hospital Trust, the catchment population of CYP was calculated; Trust-level admission rates per thousand per year were then calculated for admissions due to (1) any diagnostic code, (2) primary diagnosis of epilepsy and (3) epilepsy listed as primary diagnosis or comorbidity. RESULTS: Estimated 2014/2015 HCPs for CYP ranged from 268 558 for Barts Health NHS Trust to around 30 000 for the smallest acute general paediatric services and below 10 000 for many Trusts providing specialist services. As expected, the composition of HCPs was fairly consistent for age breakdown but levels of deprivation varied widely. After standardising for population characteristics, admission rates with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy ranged from 14.3 to 157.7 per 100 000 per year (11.0-fold variation) for Trusts providing acute general paediatric services. All-cause admission rates showed less variation, ranging from 4033 to 11 681 per 100 000 per year (2.9-fold variation). CONCLUSIONS: Use of age-specific catchment populations allows variation in hospital activity to be linked to specific teams and care pathways. This provides an evidence base for initiatives to tackle unwarranted variation in healthcare activity and health outcomes.

Hospital differences in patient satisfaction with care for breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND: We have investigated cancer patient satisfaction with care and the extent to which it varies between and within hospitals. DESIGN AND METHODS: A national survey of cancer patients in England with questions in 10 different dimensions for four common cancers: breast, colorectal, lung and prostate (55,674 patients). We compared hospitals across tumour types, and against the national average. RESULTS: Dissatisfaction was greater (p<0.001) in younger, female patients. Breast cancer patients expressed least, and prostate cancer patients expressed greatest dissatisfaction. Breast, colorectal and prostate cancers showed significant (p<0.001) pair-wise correlations for standardised satisfaction scores, particularly for in-hospital care. Summed hospital satisfaction scores showed significant associations across different dimensions of care. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patient satisfaction is measurably different between hospitals, as well as by tumour type. For many aspects of care there is evidence of systemic hospital-level factors that influence satisfaction as well as factors common to the care pathways experienced by individual patients. Factors amenable to clinical or managerial intervention deserve further investigation.