Search

The demand for health services in England is both growing and changing in nature, yet resources are limited in their ability to respond to the scale and scope of need. As a result, the NHS is under increasing pressures to realise productivity gains, while continuing to deliver high quality care. RAND Europe and the University of Manchester have been commissioned to conduct a study to examine the potential of innovation to respond to the challenges the NHS faces, and to help deliver value for money, efficient and effective services. "Innovation" in this study refers to any product, technology or service that is new to the NHS, or applied in a new way, aimed at delivering affordable and improved care. The learning we have gained adds considerable depth to the practical discussions presented regarding how innovation can be first nurtured and then made meaningful and actionable in a variety of settings. This is important given the complexity of health innovation systems and the diversity of elements that need to interact and work together for the overall system to function effectively. We share insights related to skills, capabilities and leadership; motivations and accountabilities; information and evidence; relationships and networks; patient and public engagement; and funding and commissioning. We will develop these detailed learning points into a more systematic analysis as the research evolves. The research is funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme, in close collaboration with NHS England and the Office of Life Sciences.

This study aimed to inform Hepatitis C (HCV) treatment by (1) better understanding the nexus of factors physicians consider when making HCV treatment decisions; (2) investigating the comparative influence and importance of specific factors and the trade-offs implicated in the decisionmaking process; and (3) examining how much thrombocytopenia impacts treatment decisions and how it impacts treatment. To meet this goal, we conducted five analyses, focusing on four European countries characterised by different approaches to healthcare organisation and financing, which alongside cultural differences may have potential implications for treatment pathways for patients with HCV infection. These were: France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These analysis included: Review the academic literature and of relevant national and European guidelines;Conduct key informant interviews (KIIs) with national experts to contextualise the data from the literature review and further explore some emerging themes;Map the patient journey in the four countries to identify stages HCV patients pass through once they have entered the healthcare system and map, for each stage, potential points of departure from the typical journey;Design and conduct of Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) to quantitatively assess the importance of factors that influence treatment decisions;Conduct expert workshop to help build scenarios identifying challenges to HCV treatment.The five analyses build on one another, with the first three providing evidence that fed into the design of the DCEs and with the DCE results in turn serving as the key inputs into building the scenarios for the expert workshop.

The Department of Health's Innovation, Health and Wealth (IHW) strategy aimed to introduce a more strategic approach to the spread of innovation across the NHS. This study represents the first phase of a three-year evaluation and aims to map progress towards the IHW strategy and its component actions. This evaluation used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods: document review, key informant interviews and stakeholder survey. This study also forms the basis for selecting case studies for phase two of the evaluation. Our findings from the interviews and survey suggest broad stakeholder support for the overarching ambitions of the IHW strategy. However, we found variable progress towards the overarching objectives of the eight IHW themes and an ambiguous relationship between many of the themes' objectives and their actions. It was difficult to assess progress on IHW's actions as commitment to the actions, implementation guidance and expected outcomes of the actions were not clearly articulated. The Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) and the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) were reported to be working well, which may be attributed to their clear structures of accountability and earmarked budgets. However, survey respondents and interviewees raised concerns that budgetary pressures may limit the impact of both AHSNs and the SBRI. The main challenges identified for ongoing action were the resources available for their implementation (e.g. Medtech Briefings), lack of awareness of the initiative (e.g. the NICE Implementation Collaborative) and the design of the actions (e.g. the Innovation Scorecard, web portal and High Impact Innovations).

The Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust, in co-operation with NHS England, asked RAND Europe to conduct a limited consultation with key stakeholders about the practicality of measures and incentives proposed as part of the NHS Accelerated Access Review (AAR), which aims to assess the pathways for the development, assessment, and adoption of innovative medicines and medical technology. Through a focused engagement exercise with key healthcare stakeholders this project explored the implications of selected interim AAR propositions and feasibility of implementation for key actors, in primary and secondary care as well as commissioners and academia. Specifically, the project investigated the feasibility of implementation of three specific propositions including: a new earmarked fund to encourage AHSNs and other key innovation actors to re-design systems to embrace innovation; mobilising the influence of clinical system leaders to champion change; and encouraging secondary care organisations to take on "innovation champion" roles linked to financial incentives and a new emphasis on accountable care organisations. Data was collected on the feasibility of the three AAR propositions from a workshop with AHSN CEOs and Commercial Directors and interviews with senior NHS staff in three AHSN regions (South West, University College London Partners, and North East, North Cumbria). The study concludes with reflections on the feasibility of each recommendation and identifies factors expected to facilitate or challenge their implementation, as well as considering the wider cross cutting issues that may influence the adoption and diffusion of innovation in the NHS.

In early 2012, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) leadership programme was re-commissioned for a further three years following an evaluation by RAND Europe. During this new phase of the programme, we conducted a real-time evaluation, the aim of which was to allow for reflection on and adjustment of the programme on an on-going basis as events unfold. This approach also allowed for participants on the programme to contribute to and positively engage in the evaluation. The study aimed to understand the outputs and impacts from the programme, and to test the underlying assumptions behind the NIHR Leadership Programme as a science policy intervention. Evidence on outputs and impacts of the programme were collected around the motivations and expectations of participants, programme design and individual-, institutional- and system-level impacts.

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is one of a number of Product Development Partnerships created to bridge the gap between scientific and technological potential and the needs of low income populations in low and middle income countries. Specifically IAVI is focused on creating a preventative vaccine for HIV/AIDS. Whilst the remit of IAVI is to create new science, technology and products, its work necessarily involves a wide range of stakeholders and different constituencies in industrially developing and developed countries. Its capacity building activities relate to strengthening the ability to conduct clinical trials and are broad based, spanning scientific and technological capacity through to organisational, advocacy and broader development capabilities. The aim of this study was to deepen IAVI's understanding of how it contributes to capacity building activities in East Africa (Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda), spanning scientific and technological capacity through to organisational, advocacy and broader development capabilities. IAVI's mission to develop an HIV vaccine has become increasingly connected to wider health systems strengthening, through its clinical research activities in East Africa. Since it began its operations in the region, IAVI has made a significant contribution to training interventions to support scientific excellence and good clinical practice and invested in infrastructure and laboratories at Clinical Research Centres in East Africa. Although clear challenges still exist with ensuring sustained investment, accessing marginalized populations and demonstrating progress in capacity building, the experiences of IAVI to date suggest that substantial progress is being made towards wider health systems strengthening in the region.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia, affecting approximately 1-2 per cent of the population worldwide. Those who suffer from AF have a five times higher risk of stroke. AF prevalence increases with age and it affects roughly 18 per cent of the population over 85. Consequently, as populations age, AF is becoming an increasingly significant public health issue. Over recent years there have been developments in treatment and management options, both for treating the arrhythmia directly, and assessing and reducing the risk of AF-related stroke, but there is a need to ensure that available knowledge is applied optimally to benefit patients so that opportunities to prevent AF-related stroke are not missed. The aims of this project were to assess the current landscape and explore the direction of future developments in AF management in Europe, with a focus on the use of anticoagulants in the prevention of AF-related stroke. Through rapid evidence assessment, key informant interviews, PESTLE analysis and the development and exploration of future scenarios, we have developed sets of shorter- and longer-term recommendations for improving AF-related patient outcomes. The short-term recommendations are: i) improve AF awareness among the public and policymakers; ii) support education about AF management for healthcare professionals and patients; and iii) maintain engagement in AF-related research across the health services.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Invention for Innovation (i4i) programme supports the development of innovative medical technologies for patient benefit. The i4i product development stream involves collaborative projects between at least two partners from academia, the NHS and industry. Medical technology innovators apply for funding for one to three years, through a peer review-based process that includes presentation to a selection panel. The funding and business advice provided by i4i support the development of early-stage innovations, generally at proof of concept and prototype stages. Since its inception the product development stream has identified and supported 170 projects, led by 146 principal investigators (PIs). RAND Europe evaluated the programme, with the aim of identifying its outputs and impacts and examining the factors influencing performance. The evaluation findings should help inform the future of the programme. The evaluation used a multi-method approach, including a focused review of background information from i4i, scoping interviews with key informants, a survey of programme participants and case studies of projects representing diverse technologies and health needs.

Public Health England (PHE) commissioned RAND Europe to undertake a horizon scanning study exploring the future of public health and related scientific services. This work was intended to help inform thinking at the strategic level within PHE, firstly in relation to the wider vision of the Agency (which was only established in April 2013) and, secondly, in relation to the proposals for the creation of an integrated public health science hub. The study is based on a literature review, a brief Delphi exercise using the ExpertLens platform and key informant interviews with a range of PHE staff and external experts. It focuses on the different future public health science needs and the extent to which an integrated science hub could serve PHE as it evolves over the next twenty years. Thus, the study considers PHE's future remit and objectives in order that decisions about an integrated and co-located science hub be made in context and with reference to expert perceptions about the future.

The Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) supports drug discovery efforts through a unique, open access model of public-private collaboration. This study presents the results of an independent evaluation of the Structural Genomics Consortium, conducted by RAND Europe with the Institute on Governance. The evaluation aimed to establish the role of the SGC within the wider drug discovery and PPP landscape, assessing the merits of the SGC open access model relative to alternative models of funding R&D in this space, as well as the key trends and opportunities in the external environment that may impact on the future of the SGC. It also established the incentives and disincentives for investment, strengths and weaknesses of the SGC's model, and the opportunities and threats the SGC will face in the future. This enabled us to assess the most convincing arguments for funding the SGC at present; important trade-offs or limitations that should be addressed in moving towards the next funding phase; and whether funders are anticipating changes either to the SGC or the wider PPP landscape. Finally, we undertook a quantitative analysis to ascertain what judgements can be made about the SGC's past and current performance track record, before unpacking the role of the external environment and particular actors within the SGC in developing scenarios for the future.

Real-world data (RWD) is an umbrella term for different types of data that are not collected in conventional randomised controlled trials. RWD in the healthcare sector comes from various sources and includes patient data, data from clinicians, hospital data, data from payers and social data. There are already examples of ways in which research has contributed to the provision, construction and capture of RWD to improve health outcomes. However, to maximise the potential of these new pools of data in the healthcare sector, stakeholders need to identify pathways and processes which will allow them to efficiently access and use RWD in order to achieve better research outcomes and improved healthcare delivery. Current efforts to improve access to RWD and facilitate its use take place in a context of resource scarcity. Based on a literature review, case studies, a small set of interviews of experts from public and private organisations and a scenario based workshop, the study outlined possible strategies to illustrate how RWD standards development could facilitate RWD-based research. By investigating the current forms and uses of RWD in Europe, this study has highlighted their significant potential for assessing the (short- or long-term) impact of different drugs or medical treatments and for informing and improving healthcare service delivery. Although the potential of RWD use seems quite clear, this research reveals barriers that restrict further development towards its full exploitation: the absence of common standards for defining the content and quality of RWD, methodological barriers that may limit the potential benefits of RWD analysis, governance issues underlying the absence of standards for collaboration between stakeholders, and privacy concerns and binding data protection legislation which can be seen to restrict access and use of data.

RAND Europe evaluated the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leadership Programme in an effort to help the English Department of Health consider the extent to which the programme has helped to foster NIHR's aims, extract lessons for the future, and develop plans for the next phase of the leadership programme. Successful delivery of high-quality health research requires not only an effective research base, but also a system of leadership supporting it. However, research leaders are not often given the opportunity, nor do they have the time, to attend formal leadership or management training programmes. This is unfortunate because research has shown that leadership training can have a hugely beneficial effect on an organisation. Therefore, the evaluation has a particular interest in understanding the role of the programme as a science policy intervention and will use its expertise in science policy analysis to consider this element alongside other, more traditional, measures of evaluation.