Did the evidence-based intervention (EBI) programme reduce inappropriate procedures, lessen unwarranted variation or lead to spill-over effects in the National Health Service?

BACKGROUND: Health systems are under pressure to maintain services within limited resources. The Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme published a first list of guidelines in 2019, which aimed to reduce inappropriate use of interventions within the NHS in England, reducing potential harm and optimising the use of limited resources. Seventeen procedures were selected in the first round, published in April 2019. METHODS: We evaluated changes in the trends for each procedure after its inclusion in the EBI's first list of guidelines using interrupted time series analysis. We explored whether there was any evidence of spill-over effects onto related or substitute procedures, as well as exploring changes in geographical variation following the publication of national guidance. RESULTS: Most procedures were experiencing downward trends in the years prior to the launch of EBI. We found no evidence of a trend change in any of the 17 procedures following the introduction of the guidance. No evidence of spill-over increases in substitute or related procedures was found. Geographic variation in the number of procedures performed across English CCGs remained at similar levels before and after EBI. CONCLUSIONS: The EBI programme had little success in its aim to further reduce the use of the 17 procedures it deemed inappropriate in all or certain circumstances. Most procedure rates were already decreasing before EBI and all continued with a similar trend afterwards. Geographical variation in the number of procedures remained at a similar level post EBI. De-adoption of inappropriate care is essential in maintaining health systems across the world. However, further research is needed to explore context specific enablers and barriers to effective identification and de-adoption of such inappropriate health care to support future de-adoption endeavours.

Implementing the Keele stratified care model for patients with low back pain: an observational impact study.

BACKGROUND: The Keele stratified care model for management of low back pain comprises use of the prognostic STarT Back Screening Tool to allocate patients into one of three risk-defined categories leading to associated risk-specific treatment pathways, such that high-risk patients receive enhanced treatment and more sessions than medium- and low-risk patients. The Keele model is associated with economic benefits and is being widely implemented. The objective was to assess the use of the stratified model following its introduction in an acute hospital physiotherapy department setting in Gloucestershire, England. METHODS: Physiotherapists recorded data on 201 patients treated using the Keele model in two audits in 2013 and 2014. To assess whether implementation of the stratified model was associated with the anticipated range of treatment sessions, regression analysis of the audit data was used to determine whether high- or medium-risk patients received significantly more treatment sessions than low-risk patients. The analysis controlled for patient characteristics, year, physiotherapists' seniority and physiotherapist. To assess the physiotherapists' views on the usefulness of the stratified model, audit data on this were analysed using framework methods. To assess the potential economic consequences of introducing the stratified care model in Gloucestershire, published economic evaluation findings on back-related National Health Service (NHS) costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal productivity losses were applied to audit data on the proportion of patients by risk classification and estimates of local incidence. RESULTS: When the Keele model was implemented, patients received significantly more treatment sessions as the risk-rating increased, in line with the anticipated impact of targeted treatment pathways. Physiotherapists were largely positive about using the model. The potential annual impact of rolling out the model across Gloucestershire is a gain in approximately 30 QALYs, a reduction in productivity losses valued at £1.4 million and almost no change to NHS costs. CONCLUSIONS: The Keele model was implemented and risk-specific treatment pathways successfully used for patients presenting with low back pain. Applying published economic evidence to the Gloucestershire locality suggests that substantial health and productivity outcomes would be associated with rollout of the Keele model while being cost-neutral for the NHS.