Continuity or change in business representation in Britain? An assessment of the Heseltine initiatives of the 1990s

Britain has a fragmented, overlapping, and underresourced system of business representation. Attempts at reform, however, have proved difficult and largely unsuccessful. A coherent and logical system is relevant, in terms of both an effective dialogue between government and business, and the promotion of competitiveness and productivity. Through interviews and archival evidence, I look at how government has attempted to reform business associations. The main focus is the Heseltine initiatives of the 1990s: I outline the various initiatives taken, reveal the extent to which policy represented continuity or change, and consider whether the initiatives were effective. I show that they had a degree of success but that they would have made greater impact if they had been sustained over a longer period of time. A consideration of the historical context, moreover, suggests there may be limits to the role of government intervention in business association reform

Regional variation in the productivity of the English national health service

Variation in the provision of health care has long been a policy concern. We adapt the framework for productivity measurement used in the National Accounts, making it applicable for sub-national comparisons using cross-sectional data. We assess the productivity of the National Health Service (NHS) across regions of England, termed Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs). Productivity is calculated by comparing the total amount of healthcare output to total inputs for each region, standardised to the national average. Healthcare output comprises 6500 different categories, capturing the number and type of NHS patients treated and the quality of care received. Healthcare inputs include NHS and agency staff, supplies, equipment and capital. We find that productivity varies from 5% above to 6% below the national average. Productivity is highest in South West SHA and lowest in East Midlands, South Central and Yorkshire and The Humber SHAs. We estimate that if all regions were as productive as the most productive region in England, the NHS could treat the same number of patients with £3.2bn fewer resources each year. The methods developed lend themselves to investigate variations in productivity in other types of healthcare organisations and health systems

Self-management toolkit and delivery strategy for end-of-life pain: the mixed-methods feasibility study

Background: Pain affects most people approaching the end of life and can be severe for some. Opioid analgesia is effective, but evidence is needed about how best to support patients in managing these medicines. Objectives: To develop a self-management support toolkit (SMST) and delivery strategy and to test the feasibility of evaluating this intervention in a future definitive trial. Design: Phase I – evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews with patients and carers. Phase II – qualitative semistructured focus groups and interviews with patients, carers and specialist palliative care health professionals. Phase III – multicentre mixed-methods single-arm pre–post observational feasibility study. Participants: Phase I – six patients and carers. Phase II – 15 patients, four carers and 19 professionals. Phase III – 19 patients recruited to intervention that experienced pain, living at home and were treated with strong opioid analgesia. Process evaluation interviews with 13 patients, seven carers and 11 study nurses. Intervention: Self-Management of Analgesia and Related Treatments at the end of life (SMART) intervention comprising a SMST and a four-step educational delivery approach by clinical nurse specialists in palliative care over 6 weeks. Main outcome measures: Recruitment rate, treatment fidelity, treatment acceptability, patient-reported outcomes (such as scores on the Brief Pain Inventory, Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale, and feasibility of collecting data on health-care resource use for economic evaluation). Results: Phase I – key themes on supported self-management were identified from evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews. Phase II – the SMST was developed and refined. The delivery approach was nested within a nurse–patient consultation. Phase III – intervention was delivered to 17 (89%) patients, follow-up data at 6 weeks were available on 15 patients. Overall, the intervention was viewed as acceptable and valued. Descriptive analysis of patient-reported outcomes suggested that interference from pain and self-efficacy were likely to be candidates for primary outcomes in a future trial. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The health economic analysis suggested that SMART could be cost-effective. We identified key limitations and considerations for a future trial: improve recruitment through widening eligibility criteria, refine the SMST resources content, enhance fidelity of intervention delivery, secure research nurse support at recruiting sites, refine trial procedures (including withdrawal process and data collection frequency), and consider a cluster randomised design with nurse as cluster unit. Limitations: (1) The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. (2) The content of the intervention was focused on strong opioids only. (3) The fidelity of intervention delivery was limited by the need for ongoing training and support. (4) Recruitment sites where clinical research nurse support was not secured had lower recruitment rates. (5) The process for recording withdrawal was not sufficiently detailed. (6) The number of follow-up visits was considered burdensome for some participants. (7) The feasibility trial did not have a control arm or assess randomisation processes. Conclusions: A future randomised controlled trial is feasible and acceptable

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries

All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities

An evaluation of gender equity in different models of primary care practices in Ontario

Background: The World Health Organization calls for more work evaluating the effect of health care reforms on gender equity in developed countries. We performed this evaluation in Ontario, Canada where primary care models resulting from reforms co-exist. // Methods: This cross sectional study of primary care practices uses data collected in 2005-2006. Healthcare service models included in the study consist of fee for service (FFS) based, salaried, and capitation based. We compared the quality of care delivered to women and men in practices of each model. We performed multi-level, multivariate regressions adjusting for patient socio-demographic and economic factors to evaluate vertical equity, and adjusting for these and health factors in evaluating horizontal equity. We measured seven dimensions of health service delivery (e.g. accessibility and continuity) and three dimensions of quality of care using patient surveys (n = 5,361) and chart abstractions (n = 4,108). // Results: Health service delivery measures were comparable in women and men, with differences ≤ 2.2% in all seven dimensions and in all models. Significant gender differences in the health promotion subjects addressed were observed. Female specific preventive manoeuvres were more likely to be performed than other preventive care. Men attending FFS practices were more likely to receive influenza immunization than women (Adjusted odds ratio: 1.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.05, 2.92). There was no difference in the other three prevention indicators. FFS practices were also more likely to provide recommended care for chronic diseases to men than women (Adjusted difference of -11.2%, CI -21.7, -0.8). A similar trend was observed in Community Health Centers (CHC). // Conclusions: The observed differences in the type of health promotion subjects discussed are likely an appropriate response to the differential healthcare needs between genders. Chronic disease care is non equitable in FFS but not in capitation based models. We recommend that efforts to monitor and address gender based differences in the delivery of chronic disease management in primary care be pursued.Funding for the original study on which this research is based was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Primary Health Care Transition Fund. The views expressed in this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

Resource allocation and priority setting in health care: a multi-criteria decision analysis problem of value?

A methodological approach is needed for allocating health care resources in an efficient and fair way that gives legitimacy to decisions. Currently, most priority setting approaches tend to focus on single or limited benefit dimensions, even though the value of new health care interventions is multi-dimensional. Explicit elicitation of social value trade-offs is usually not possible and decision-makers often adopt intuitive or heuristic modes for simplification purposes as part of an ad hoc decision-making process which might diminish the reasonableness and credibility of the decisions. In this paper, we suggest that multi-criteria decision analysis could provide a more comprehensive and transparent approach in health care to systematically capture decision-makers’ concerns, compare value trade-offs and elicit their value preferences. We conclude that such methods could inform the development of a decision support system in health care, contributing towards more efficient, rational and legitimate resource allocation decisions