Search

Background Despite its role as an effective intervention to improve the long-term health of patients with cardiovascular disease and existence of national guidelines on timeliness, many health services still fail to offer cardiac rehabilitation in a timely manner after referral. The impact of this failure on patient health and the additional burden on healthcare providers in an English setting is quantified in this article. Methods Two logistic regressions are conducted, using the British Heart Foundation National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation dataset, to estimate the impact of delayed cardiac rehabilitation initiation on the level of uptake and completion. The results of these regressions are applied to a decision model to estimate the long-term implications of these factors on patient health and National Health Service expenditure. Results We demonstrate that the failure of 43.6% of patients in England to start cardiac rehabilitation within the recommended timeframe results in a 15.3% reduction in uptake, and 7.4% in completion. These combine to cause an average lifetime loss of 0.08 years of life expectancy per person. Scaled up to an annual cohort this implies 10,753 patients not taking up cardiac rehabilitation due to the delay, equating to a loss of 3936 years of life expectancy. We estimate that an additional £12.3 million of National Health Service funding could be invested to alleviate the current delay. Conclusions The current delay in many patients starting cardiac rehabilitation is causing quantifiable and avoidable harm to their long-term health; policy and research must now look at both supply and demand solutions in tackling this issue.

Background: Although child mortality has decreased over the last few decades, around 4,500 infants and children die in the UK every year, many of whom require palliative care. There is, however, little evidence on paediatric end-of-life care services. The current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance provides recommendations about what should be offered, but these are based on low quality evidence. The ENHANCE study aims to identify and investigate the different models of existing end-of-life care provision for infants, children, and young people in the UK, including an assessment of the outcomes and experiences for children and parents, and the cost implications to families and healthcare providers. Methods: This mixed methods study will use three linked workstreams and a cross-cutting health economics theme to examine end-of-life care models in three exemplar clinical settings: infant, children and young adult cancer services (PTCs), paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), and neonatal units (NNUs). Workstream 1 (WS1) will survey current practice in each setting and will result in an outline of the different models of care used. WS2 is a qualitative comparison of the experiences of staff, parents and patients across the different models identified. WS3 is a quantitative assessment of the outcomes, resource use and costs across the different models identified. Discussion: Results from this study will contribute to an understanding of how end-of-life care can provide the greatest benefit for children at the end of their lives. It will also allow us to understand the likely benefits of additional funding in end-of-life care in terms of patient outcomes.

Background In England, many services that are paid for using taxpayers’ money are decided on and funded by local commissioners such as Local Authorities (LAs) and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs); although, CCGs are set to be replaced by Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) within 2022. LAs are responsible for publicly funded social care (e.g. home-based services) and some public health services (e.g. sexual health services). CCGs are responsible for funding most healthcare services in local areas. All local decision makers aim to fund services for public benefit; for example, promoting and protecting health and preventing ill-health, while ensuring ‘value for money’ for taxpayers. Such services and local decision makers often collect data to inform their processes. This data is used to support the services provided for individuals, but also for administrative reasons. This data could be used more often to help inform improvements to current services and funding of new services, but also to support research by universities. However, as this data could include potentially personal and sensitive information, it is important that it is protected and only shared in circumstances when there is a clear and legal reason that would benefit the public. What did we aim to achieve? We set out to understand: (1) what data is available to local decision makers; (2) how they currently use it; (3) how data can be used and potentially shared with parties who want to use it for public benefit. Furthermore, we aimed to explain how to best use and share data legally with clear reasons for its use. An example would be helping local decision makers calculate which services are considered ‘value for money’ or not, to allow local decision makers to best use money available to them. How did we do it? We first identified examples of when data has been used and legally shared to inform local decision making. We then produced a detailed list of what data these local decision makers have available. These examples and data were discussed with people who work within two LAs and a CCG, within three universities, and members of the public. This allowed us to further explore what is important to consider when using such data to inform local decision making or research purposes, and how the use of such information could be made more transparent and understandable for the public. Patient and the public involvement in the project A lay co-applicant (KS) helped with every aspect of the research project. We additionally set up a public advisory group to advise on the public workshops, interpretation of the findings, and co-design study outputs. What did we discover? Local commissioners are using and sharing data in various ways to benefit the public, such as identifying if certain people may be at-risk of a bad event; for example, older people at-risk of falling who would then require hospital and perhaps social care. However, local commissioners are not always clear in how they report the use of such data, who has control or is using such data, and if any public benefit was ever achieved from recording this data. We attempted to develop an understanding of what data was available for adult social care services. However, we were unable to achieve this aim because of issues to do with the amount of time, effort, and types of staff available within the relevant local commissioners to understand the data available. By discussing the need and use of data with LA and CCG staff, and members of the public, we identified a variety of areas to improve the responsible use of data. One thing discussed was the need for trust and understanding between everyone involved about how and when data is being used, what data is used (for example, if it reflects an individual or group), but also the public benefit of using such data. When analysing data, researchers and local commissioners need to communicate better and come to a joint understanding of how such data can be accessed and used for public benefit. This includes information about what services are considered value for money and who may be paying for what aspects associated with the services across CCGs and LAs, and if there is any chance spending may not remain within budget. Overall, there are ways to responsibly use data which protects the public and could provide public benefit such as treating or avoiding ill-health; however, clearer communication and building trust is needed. How will this research change health and social care? We believe our research could start to change and improve how researchers and local decision makers use locally available data to decide which services to fund to benefit communities. This includes suggested information to be made clearer to the public.

Background: Scaphoid fractures account for 90% of carpal fractures and occur predominantly in young men. Immediate surgical fixation of this fracture has increased.\ud \ud Objective: To compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with cast treatment and early fixation of those that fail to unite for scaphoid waist fractures in adults.\ud \ud Design: Multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and nested qualitative study.\ud \ud Setting: Orthopaedic departments of 31 hospitals in England and Wales recruited from July 2013 with final follow-up in September 2017.\ud \ud Participants: Adults (aged ≥ 16 years), presenting within two weeks of injury with a clear bicortical fracture of the scaphoid waist on plain radiographs.\ud \ud Interventions: Early surgical fixation using CE marked headless compression screws. Below elbow cast immobilisation for six to ten weeks, and urgent fixation of confirmed non-union.\ud \ud Main outcome measures: The primary outcome and end-point was the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) total score at 52 weeks, with a clinically relevant difference of six points. Secondary outcomes included PRWE pain and function subscales, Short Form 12-item questionnaire (SF-12), bone union, range of movement, grip strength, complications and return to work.\ud \ud Results: The mean age of 439 participants was 33 years, 363 were male (83%) and 269 had an undisplaced fracture (61%). The primary analysis was on 408 participants providing valid PRWE outcome data for at least one post-randomisation time-point (surgery n=203 of 219; cast n=205 of 220). There was no clinically relevant difference in the total PRWE at 52 weeks: cast group mean 14.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.3 to 16.6] and surgery group mean 11.9 (95% CI 9.2 to 14.5); adjusted mean difference of -2.1 in favour of surgery (95% CI -5.8 to 1.6, p=0.27). Non-union rate was low (surgery group n=1; cast group n=4). Eight participants in the surgery group had 11 re-operations, and one participant in the cast group required a re-operation for non-union. The base-case economic analysis at 52 weeks found the cost of surgery was £1,295 more per patient (95% CI £1,084 to £1,504) than cast treatment. The base-case analysis of a lifetime extrapolated model confirmed that the cast treatment pathway was the most cost-effective option. The nested qualitative study identified patients desire to have a “sense of recovering” which surgeons should address at the outset.\ud \ud Limitation: There were 17 participants who had initial cast treatment and surgery for confirmed non-union, 14 within six months from randomisation and three after six months. Three of four participants in the cast group, who had a non-union at 52 weeks, were not offered surgery.\ud \ud Conclusions: Adult patients with an undisplaced or minimally displaced scaphoid waist fracture should have cast immobilisation and suspected non-unions immediately confirmed and urgently fixed.\ud \ud Future work: Patients will be followed-up at five years to investigate the effect of partial union, degenerative arthritis, malunion and screw problems on their quality of life.

In a UK policy context, education and healthcare sectors share many characteristics; however, the role of economic evaluation in informing policy making is very different. While in health it has become a key part of the deliberative processes of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in their recommendations to the NHS, it has not played the same role in education. In this article we explore three key components that are required to underpin robust evaluations: a clear perspective, the identification of a single maximand, and recognition of the opportunity costs. We demonstrate the importance of each, how it has been applied in the NICE framework, and how it may be implemented in a UK education setting. We conclude that the failure in education to address the three components has reduced the ability to consider the cost-effectiveness of funding decisions, potentially resulting in inefficient use of educational funding.