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.

Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available. RESULTS: There was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: We found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN5178022.

Does the presence of general practitioners in emergency departments affect quality and safety in English NHS hospitals? A retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) in NHS hospitals in England have faced considerable increases in demand over recent years. Most hospitals have developed general practitioner services in emergency departments (GPEDs) to treat non-emergency patients, aiming to relieve pressure on other staff and to improve ED efficiency and patient experience. We measured the impact of GPED services on patient flows, health outcomes and ED workload. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. Differences in GPED service availability across EDs and time of day were used to identify the causal effect of GPED, as patients attending the ED at the same hour of the day are quasi-randomly assigned to treatment or control groups based on their local ED's service availability. PARTICIPANTS: Attendances to 40 EDs in English NHS hospitals from April 2018 to March 2019, 4 441 349 observations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURED: Outcomes measured were volume of attendances, 'non-urgent' attendances, waiting times over 4 hours, patients leaving without being treated, unplanned reattendances within 7 days, inpatient admissions and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We found a small, statistically significant reduction in unplanned reattendances within 7 days (OR 0.968, 95% CI 0.948 to 0.989), equivalent to 302 fewer reattendances per year for the average ED. The clinical impact of this was judged to be negligible. There was no detectable impact on any other outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: We found no adverse effects on patient outcomes; neither did we find any evidence of the hypothesised benefits of placing GPs in emergency settings beyond a marginal reduction in reattendances that was not considered clinically significant.

Current provision of general practitioner services in or alongside emergency departments in England.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department (GPED), an approach that employs GPs in or alongside the ED to address increasing ED demand, was advocated by the National Health Service in England and supported by capital funding. However, little is known about the models of GPED that have been implemented. METHODS: Data were collected at two time points: September 2017 and December 2019, on the GPED model in use (if any) at 163/177 (92%) type 1 EDs in England. Models were categorised according to a taxonomy as 'inside/integrated', 'inside/parallel', 'outside/onsite' or 'outside/offsite'. Multiple data sources used included: on-line surveys, interviews, case study data and publicly available information. RESULTS: An increase of EDs using GPED was observed from 81% to 95% over the study period. 'Inside/parallel' was the most frequently used model: 30% (44/149) in 2017, rising to 49% (78/159) in 2019. The adoption of 'inside/integrated' models fell from 26% (38/149) to 9% (15/159). Capital funding was received by 87% (142/163) of the EDs sampled. We identified no significant difference between the GPED model adopted and observable characteristics of EDs of annual attendance, 4-hour wait, rurality and deprivation within the population served. CONCLUSION: The majority of EDs in England have now adopted GPED. The availability of capital funding to finance structural changes so that separate GP services can be provided may explain the rise in parallel models and the decrease in integrated models. Further research is required to understand the relative effectiveness of the various models of GPED identified.

Do small hospitals have lower quality? Evidence from the English NHS.

We investigate the extent to which small hospitals are associated with lower quality. We first take a patient perspective, and test if, controlling for casemix, patients admitted to small hospitals receive lower quality than those admitted to larger hospitals. We then investigate if differences in quality between large and small hospitals can be explained by hospital characteristics such as hospital type and staffing. We use a range of quality measures including hospital mortality rates (overall and for specific conditions), hospital acquired infection rates, waiting times for emergency patients, and patient perceptions of the care they receive. We find that small hospitals, with fewer than 400 beds, are generally not associated with lower quality before or after controlling for hospital characteristics. The only exception is heart attack mortality, which is generally higher in small hospitals.

Why are there long waits at English emergency departments?

A core performance target for the English National Health Service (NHS) concerns waiting times at Emergency Departments (EDs), with the aim of minimising long waits. We investigate the drivers of long waits. We analyse weekly data for all major EDs in England from April 2011 to March 2016. A Poisson model with ED fixed effects is used to explore the impact on long (> 4 h) waits of variations in demand (population need and patient case-mix) and supply (emergency physicians, introduction of a Minor Injury Unit (MIU), inpatient bed occupancy, delayed discharges and long-term care). We assess overall ED waits and waits on a trolley (gurney) before admission. We also investigate variation in performance among EDs. The rate of long overall waits is higher in EDs serving older patients (4.2%), where a higher proportion of attendees leave without being treated (15.1%), in EDs with a higher death rate (3.3%) and in those located in hospitals with greater bed occupancy (1.5%). These factors are also significantly associated with higher rates of long trolley waits. The introduction of a co-located MIU is significantly and positively associated with long overall waits, but not with trolley waits. There is substantial variation in waits among EDs that cannot be explained by observed demand and supply characteristics. The drivers of long waits are only partially understood but addressing them is likely to require a multi-faceted approach. EDs with high rates of unexplained long waits would repay further investigation to ascertain how they might improve.

Paying for efficiency: Incentivising same-day discharges in the English NHS.

We study a pay-for-efficiency scheme that encourages hospitals to admit and discharge patients on the same calendar day when clinically appropriate. Since 2010, hospitals in the English NHS are incentivised by a higher price for patients treated as same-day discharge than for overnight stays, despite the former being less costly. We analyse administrative data for patients treated during 2006-2014 for 191 conditions for which same-day discharge is clinically appropriate - of which 32 are incentivised. Using difference-in-difference and synthetic control methods, we find that the policy had generally a positive impact with a statistically significant effect in 14 out of the 32 conditions. The median elasticity is 0.24 for planned and 0.01 for emergency conditions. Condition-specific design features explain some, but not all, of the differential responses.

Can productivity growth measures identify best performing hospitals? Evidence from the English National Health Service.

Health-care systems around the world face limited financial resources, and England is no exception. The ability of the health-care system in England to operate within its financial resources depends in part on continually increasing its productivity. One means of achieving this is to identify and disseminate throughout the system the most efficient processes. We examine the annual productivity growth achieved by 151 hospitals over five financial years, using the same methods developed to measure productivity of the National Health Service as a whole. We consider whether there are hospitals that consistently achieve higher than average productivity growth. These could act as examples of good practice for others to follow and provide a means of increasing system performance. We find that the productivity growth of some hospitals over the whole period exhibits better than average performance, but there is little or no evidence of consistency in the performance of these hospitals over adjacent years. Even the best performers exhibit periods of very poor performance and vice versa. We therefore conclude that accepted methods of measuring productivity growth for the health system as a whole do not appear suitable for identifying good performance at the hospital level.

Hospital Trusts productivity in the English NHS: Uncovering possible drivers of productivity variations.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems in OECD countries are increasingly facing economic challenges and funding pressures. These normally demand interventions (political, financial and organisational) aimed at improving the efficiency of the health system as a whole and its single components. In 2009, the English NHS Chief Executive, Sir David Nicholson, warned that a potential funding gap of £20 billion should be met by extensive efficiency savings by March 2015. Our study investigates possible drivers of differential Trust performance (productivity) for the financial years 2010/11-2012/13. METHODS: Following accounting practice, we define Productivity as the ratio of Outputs over Inputs. We analyse variation in both Total Factor and Labour Productivity using ordinary least squares regressions. We explicitly included in our analysis factors of differential performance highlighted in the Nicholson challenge as the sources were the efficiency savings should come from. Explanatory variables include efficiency in resource use measures, Trust and patient characteristics, and quality of care. RESULTS: We find that larger Trusts and Foundation Trusts are associated with lower productivity, as are those treating a greater proportion of both older and/or younger patients. Surprisingly treating more patients in their last year of life is associated with higher Labour Productivity.

Long-term care provision, hospital bed blocking, and discharge destination for hip fracture and stroke patients.

We examine the relationship between long-term care supply (care home beds and prices) and (i) the probability of being discharged to a care home and (ii) length of stay in hospital for patients admitted to hospital for hip fracture or stroke. Using patient level data from all English hospitals and allowing for a rich set of demographic and clinical factors, we find no association between discharge destination and long-term care beds supply or prices. We do, however, find evidence of bed blocking: hospital length of stay for hip fracture patients discharged to a care home is shorter in areas with more long-term care beds and lower prices. Length of stay is over 30% shorter in areas in the highest quintile of care home beds supply compared to those in the lowest quintile.

Testing the bed-blocking hypothesis: does nursing and care home supply reduce delayed hospital discharges?

Hospital bed-blocking occurs when hospital patients are ready to be discharged to a nursing home, but no place is available, so that hospital care acts as a more costly substitute for long-term care. We investigate the extent to which greater supply of nursing home beds or lower prices can reduce hospital bed-blocking using a new Local Authority (LA) level administrative data from England on hospital delayed discharges in 2009-2013. The results suggest that delayed discharges respond to the availability of care home beds, but the effect is modest: an increase in care home beds by 10% (250 additional beds per LA) would reduce social care delayed discharges by about 6-9%. We also find strong evidence of spillover effects across LAs: more care home beds or fewer patients aged over 65 years in nearby LAs are associated with fewer delayed discharges.

Coronary artery bypass grafts and diagnosis related groups: patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 10 European countries.

BACKGROUND: The prospective reimbursement of hospitals through the grouping of patients into a finite number of categories (Diagnosis Related Groups, DRGs), is common to many European countries. However, the specific categories used vary greatly across countries, using different characteristics to define group boundaries and thus those characteristics which result in different payments for treatment. In order to assist in the construction and modification of national DRG systems, this study analyses the DRG systems of 10 European countries. AIMS: To compare the characteristics used to categorise patients receiving a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery into DRGs. Further, to compare the structure into which DRGs are placed and the relative price paid for patients across Europe. METHOD: Patients with a procedure of CABG surgery are analysed from Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Diagrammatic algorithms of DRG structures are presented for each country. The price in Euros of seven typical case vignettes, each made up of a set of a hypothetical patient's characteristics, is also analysed for each country. In order to enable comparisons across countries the simplest case (index vignette) is taken as baseline and relative price levels are calculated for the other six vignettes, each representing patients with different combinations of procedures and comorbidities. RESULTS: European DRG payment structures for CABG surgery vary in terms of the number of different DRGs used and the types of distinctions which define patient categorisation. Based on the payments given to hospitals in different countries, the most resource intensive patient, relative to the index vignette, ranges in magnitude from 1.37 in Poland to 2.82 in Ireland. There is also considerable variation in how much different systems pay for particular circumstances, such as the occurrence of catheterisation or presence of comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Past experience of the construction of DRG systems for CABG patients demonstrates the variety of options available. It also highlights the importance of updating systems as frequently as possible, to incentivise best practice.

Why do patients having coronary artery bypass grafts have different costs or length of stay? An analysis across 10 European countries.

We analyse variations in cost or length of stay (LoS) for 66,587 patients from 10 European countries receiving a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedure. In five of these countries, variations in cost are analysed using log-linear models. In the other five countries, negative binomial regression models are used to explore variations in LoS. We compare how well each country's diagnosis-related group (DRG) system and a set of patient-level characteristics explain these variations. The most important explanatory factors are the total number of diagnoses and procedures, although no clear effects are evident for our CABG-specific diagnostic and procedural variables. Wound infections significantly increase LoS and costs in most countries. There is no evidence that countries using larger numbers of DRGs to group CABG patients are better at explaining variations in cost or LoS. However, refinements to the construction of DRGs to group CABG patients might recognise first and subsequent CABGs or other specific surgical procedures, such as multiple valve repair.

CONTROL OF SEX RATIOS IN HAPLOID POPULATIONS OF THE MOSS, CERATODON PURPUREUS.

Female biased sex ratios occur in a number of unrelated mosses. Such ratios refer to the relative numbers of male and female gametophytes in moss populations and are therefore more comparable to the numbers of pollen grains and ovules in populations of seed plants than to the numbers of male (microsporangiate) and female (megasporangiate) sporophytes. A survey of 11 populations of the moss, Ceratodon purpureus, showed that sex ratios are heterogeneous, but that female biases occur in more than half the populations. One hundred and sixty single spore isolates representing 40 sporophytes from one population demonstrated that female gametophytes outnumbered males by a ratio of 3:2 at the time of germination. Female gametophytic clones formed significantly more biomass than male clones, and individual female shoots were more robust. Male clones, however, produced more numerous stems. These sexually dimorphic traits may be related to life history differences between male and female gametophytes since females must provide nutritional support to the "parasitic" sporophyte generation, a burden that males do not share.