Access to hip and knee arthroplasty in England: commissioners' policies for body mass index and smoking status and implications for integrated care systems.

BACKGROUND: Commissioning policies are in place in England that alter access to hip and knee arthroplasty based on patients' body mass index and smoking status. Our objectives were to ascertain the prevalence, trend and nature of these policies, and consider the implications for new integrated care systems (ICSs). METHODS: Policy data were obtained from an internet search for all current and historic clinical commissioning group (CCG) hip and knee arthroplasty policies and use of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to each CCG. Descriptive analyses of policy type, explicit threshold criteria and geography are reported. Estimates were made of the uptake of policies by ICSs based on the modal policy type of their constituent CCGs. RESULTS: There were 106 current and 143 historic CCGs in England at the time of the search in June 2021. Policy information was available online for 56.2% (140/249) CCGs. With the addition of information from FOIs, complete policy information was available for 94.4% (235/249) of CCGs. Prevalence and severity of policies have increased over time. For current CCGs, 67.9% (72/106) had a policy for body mass index (BMI) and 75.5% (80/106) had a policy for smoking status for hip or knee arthroplasty. Where BMI policies were in place, 61.1% (44/72) introduced extra waiting time before surgery or restricted access to surgery based on BMI thresholds (modal threshold: BMI of 40 kg/m2, range 30-45). In contrast, where smoking status policies were in place, most offered patients advice or optional smoking cessation support and only 15% (12/80) introduced extra waiting time or mandatory cessation before surgery. It is estimated that 40% of ICSs may adopt a BMI policy restrictive to access to arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Access policies to arthroplasty based on BMI and smoking status are widespread in England, have increased in prevalence since 2013, and persist within new ICSs. The high variation in policy stringency on BMI between regions is likely to cause inequality in access to arthroplasty and to specialist support for affected patients. Further work should determine the impact of different types of policy on access to surgery and health inequalities.

Commissioner, clinician, and patient experiences of a pre-surgical health optimisation programme - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health optimisation programmes are an increasingly popular policy intervention that aim to support patients to lose weight or stop smoking ahead of surgery. There is little evidence about their impact and the experience of their use. The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of commissioners, clinicians and patients involved in a locality's health optimisation programme in the United Kingdom. The programme alters access to elective orthopaedic surgery for patients who smoke or are obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2), diverting them to a 12-week programme of behavioural change interventions prior to assessment for surgical referral. METHODS: A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 20) with National Health Service and Local Authority commissioners and planners, healthcare professionals, and patients using the pathway. RESULTS: Health optimisation was broadly acceptable to professionals and patients in our sample and offered a chance to trigger both short term pre-surgical weight loss/smoking cessation and longer-term sustained changes to lifestyle intentions post-surgery. Communicating the nature and purpose of the programme to patients was challenging and consequently the quality of the explanation received and understanding gained by patients was generally low. Insight into the successful implementation of health optimisation for the hip and knee pathway, but failure in roll-out to other surgical specialities, suggests placement of health optimisation interventions into the 'usual waiting time' for surgical referral may be of greatest acceptability to professionals and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals supported the continuation of health optimisation in this context and recognised likely health and wellbeing benefits for a majority of patients. However, the clinicians' communication to patients about health optimisation needs to improve to prepare patients and optimise their engagement.

Holistic preconception care: Providing real-time guidance via a mobile app to optimise maternal and child health.

Introduction: Preconception is a critical period to optimise gamete function and early placental development, essential for successful conception and long-term maternal-child health. However, there is a lack of preconception services and consequently, global fertility rates continue to fall and mothers embark on their pregnancy journey in poor health. There is an urgent need to implement a holistic community-level preconception care programme to optimise risk factors for poor fecundability and improve long-term maternal-child health. Method: We reviewed current evidence on fecundability lifestyle risk factors, the efficacy of existing preconception interventions and the use of digital platforms for health optimisation, to create a new digital-based preconception intervention model that will be implemented via an app. We present the theory, content and mode of delivery of this holistic model targeting couples planning for pregnancy. Results: We propose a new model featuring a user-friendly mobile app, which enables couples to self-assess fecundability risks through a personalised risk score that drives a tailored management plan. This tiered management provides anticipatory guidance supported by evidence-based recommen-dations, and promotes ongoing engagement for behavioural optimisation and specialist referrals as required. Based on the health belief model, this new model delivered with a mobile app seeks to shift couples' perceptions about their susceptibility and severity of subfertility, benefits of making a change and barriers to change. Conclusion: Our proposed digital-based intervention model via a mobile app stands to enhance preconcep-tion care by providing personalised risk assessments, real-time feedback and tiered management to optimise preconception reproductive health of couples. This model forms a reference content framework for future preconception care intervention delivery.

Health optimisation for patients with obesity before elective orthopaedic surgery: a qualitative study of professionals' views on restrictive approaches and future practice.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative health optimisation for elective surgery entails supporting patients to improve their health in preparation for their treatment and recovery. While there is consensus that this process should address obesity, approaches vary across England. Despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to the contrary, restrictive approaches with body mass index thresholds for referral to arthroplasty are in use. This qualitative study aimed to investigate the views of professionals on the current use and future implications of these policies. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 professionals including clinicians, commissioners, policymakers, and health service managers, with experience of developing and/or implementing health optimisation policies for elective arthroplasty. Participants were sampled from areas in England with and without restrictive policies. We undertook thematic analysis of the interview data. RESULTS: Participants described pre-surgical health optimisation as an important trigger for health improvement but identified current resourcing and inadequacies in provision of weight management support as significant barriers to success. Participants expressed concerns about the appropriateness and fairness of including obesity as a determinant to restrict access to surgery. They described short-term financial pressures underlying the use of restrictive body mass index thresholds and a lack of an evidence base, such that policies amounted to rationing and risked exacerbations of health inequalities. The study identified four priorities for improvements to future health optimisation practices: developing and implementing national guidance with flexibility for local variation, initiating patient engagement in primary care with onward integration across all services, improving resourcing to support effective equitable impact, and addressing wider determinants of obesity through societal change. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants had limited expectations of the impact of health optimisation policies on obesity without additional support, investment, and national guideline implementation. They raised strong concerns over current restrictive approaches. We conclude that addressing concerns around weight management support service availability and impacts on health inequalities is essential for shaping effective health optimisation policies. Future policy direction should support health optimisation to be offered early (ideally in primary care). Health optimisation interventions should be non-restrictive, inclusive, and well-monitored, particularly around equality impact.

Evaluating a pre-surgical health optimisation programme: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Health optimisation programmes are increasingly popular and aim to support patients to lose weight or stop smoking ahead of surgery, yet there is little published evidence about their impact. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of evaluating a programme introduced by a National Health Service (NHS) clinical commissioning group offering support to smokers/obese patients in an extra 3 months prior to the elective hip/knee surgery pathway. METHODS: Feasibility study mapping routinely collected data sources, availability and completeness for 502 patients referred to the hip/knee pathway in February-July 2018. RESULTS: Data collation across seven sources was complex. Data completeness for smoking and ethnicity was poor. While 37% (184) of patients were eligible for health optimisation, only 28% of this comparatively deprived patient group accepted referral to the support offered. Patients who accepted referral to support and completed the programme had a larger median reduction in BMI than those who did not accept referral (- 1.8 BMI points vs. - 0.5). Forty-nine per cent of patients who accepted support were subsequently referred to surgery, compared to 61% who did not accept referral to support. CONCLUSIONS: Use of routinely collected data to evaluate health optimisation programmes is feasible though demanding. Indications of the positive effects of health optimisation interventions from this study and existing literature suggest that the challenge of programme evaluation should be prioritised; longer-term evaluation of costs and outcomes is warranted to inform health optimisation policy development.

Resistance narratives in patients' accounts of a mandatory pre-operative health optimisation scheme: A qualitative study.

Background: Pre-operative Health Optimisation is the engagement of patients in health behavior change, such as smoking cessation and weight reduction prior to surgery. Programmes which routinely delay surgery while some patients undergo preoperative optimisation are increasingly used within the UK. Advocates of this approach argue that it reduces perioperative risk and encourages longer term change at a teachable moment. However, critics have argued that mandatory preoperative optimisation schemes may perpetuate or exacerbate inequalities. Aim: To understand patients' experience of a mandatory preoperative optimisation scheme at the time of referral for elective surgery. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study in one area of the UK. Method: Participants were recruited through GP practices and participating weight-loss schemes. Data was collected from nine semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Thematic analysis was informed by the concept of narratives of resistance. Results: Four forms of resistance were found in relation to the programme. Interviewees questioned the way their GPs presented the scheme, suggesting they were acting for the health system rather than their patients. While interviewees accepted personal responsibility for health behaviors, those resisting the scheme emphasized that the wider system carried responsibilities too. Interviewees found referral to the scheme stigmatizing and offset this by distancing themselves from more deviant health behaviors. Finally, interviewees emphasized the logical contradictions between different health promotion messages. Conclusion: Patients described negative experiences of mandatory pre-operative health optimisation. Framing them as resistance narratives helps understand how patients contest the imposition of optimisation and highlights the risk of unintended consequences.