Search

BackgroundCentralising specialist cancer surgical services is an example of major system change. High-volume centres are recommended to improve specialist cancer surgery care and outcomes.ObjectiveOur aim was to use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the centralisation of specialist surgery for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophago-gastric cancers in two areas of England [i.e. London Cancer (London, UK), which covers north-central London, north-east London and west Essex, and Greater Manchester Cancer (Manchester, UK), which covers Greater Manchester].DesignStakeholder preferences for centralising specialist cancer surgery were analysed using a discrete choice experiment, surveying cancer patients (n = 206), health-care professionals (n = 111) and the general public (n = 127). Quantitative analysis of impact on care, outcomes and cost-effectiveness used a controlled before-and-after design. Qualitative analysis of implementation and outcomes of change used a multisite case study design, analysing documents (n = 873), interviews (n = 212) and non-participant observations (n = 182). To understand how lessons apply in other contexts, we conducted an online workshop with stakeholders from a range of settings. A theory-based framework was used to synthesise these approaches.ResultsStakeholder preferences – patients, health-care professionals and the public had similar preferences, prioritising reduced risk of complications and death, and better access to specialist teams. Travel time was considered least important. Quantitative analysis (impact of change) – only London Cancer’s centralisations happened soon enough for analysis. These changes were associated with fewer surgeons doing more operations and reduced length of stay [prostate –0.44 (95% confidence interval –0.55 to –0.34) days; bladder –0.563 (95% confidence interval –4.30 to –0.83) days; renal –1.20 (95% confidence interval –1.57 to –0.82) days]. The centralisation meant that renal patients had an increased probability of receiving non-invasive surgery (0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.08). We found no evidence of impact on mortality or re-admissions, possibly because risk was already low pre-centralisation. London Cancer’s prostate, oesophago-gastric and bladder centralisations had medium probabilities (79%, 62% and 49%, respectively) of being cost-effective, and centralising renal services was not cost-effective (12% probability), at the £30,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Qualitative analysis, implementation and outcomes – London Cancer’s provider-led network overcame local resistance by distributing leadership throughout the system. Important facilitators included consistent clinical leadership and transparent governance processes. Greater Manchester Cancer’s change leaders learned from history to deliver the oesophago-gastric centralisation. Greater Manchester Cancer’s urology centralisations were not implemented because of local concerns about the service model and local clinician disengagement. London Cancer’s network continued to develop post implementation. Consistent clinical leadership helped to build shared priorities and collaboration. Information technology difficulties had implications for interorganisational communication and how reliably data follow the patient. London Cancer’s bidding processes and hierarchical service model meant that staff reported feelings of loss and a perceived ‘us and them’ culture. Workshop – our findings resonated with workshop attendees, highlighting issues about change leadership, stakeholder collaboration and implications for future change and evaluation.LimitationsThe discrete choice experiment used a convenience sample, limiting generalisability. Greater Manchester Cancer implementation delays meant that we could study the impact of only London Cancer changes. We could not analyse patient experience, quality of life or functional outcomes that were important to patients (e.g. continence).Future researchFuture research may focus on impact of change on care options offered, patient experience, functional outcomes and long-term sustainability. Studying other approaches to achieving high-volume services would be valuable.

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-hsr-10.1177_13558196221082585 for Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England by Georgia Black, Victoria Wood, Angus Ramsay, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Catherine Perry, Caroline Clarke, Claire Levermore, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, Axel Bex, Maxine Tran, David Shackley, John Hines, Muntzer Mughal and Naomi J Fulop in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-hsr-10.1177_13558196221082585 for Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England by Georgia Black, Victoria Wood, Angus Ramsay, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Catherine Perry, Caroline Clarke, Claire Levermore, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, Axel Bex, Maxine Tran, David Shackley, John Hines, Muntzer Mughal and Naomi J Fulop in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Supplemental material, GM-SAT_resub_to_CR_-_supplementary_RS for Six-month reviews for stroke survivors: a study of the modified Greater Manchester Stroke Assessment Tool with care home residents by Emma Patchwood, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Katy Rothwell, Catherine Perry, Pippa Tyrrell and Audrey Bowen in Clinical Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND: There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017.METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely.DISCUSSION: This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.

Conceptual framework: key components of major system change. Conceptual framework. (DOCX 100 kb)

Supporting figures, tables and methods for acute stroke cost-utility analysis. (DOCX 81 kb)

Summary of raw data. Summary of raw data. (DOCX 23 kb)

Implementing major system change in healthcare is not well understood. This gap may be addressed by analysing change in terms of interrelated components identified in the implementation literature, including decision to change, intervention selection, implementation approaches, implementation outcomes, and intervention outcomes.

Service level interviews topic guide. (DOCX 20 kb)

BACKGROUND: Implementing major system change in healthcare is not well understood. This gap may be addressed by analysing change in terms of interrelated components identified in the implementation literature, including decision to change, intervention selection, implementation approaches, implementation outcomes, and intervention outcomes.METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of two cases of major system change: the centralisation of acute stroke services in Manchester and London, which were associated with significantly different implementation outcomes (fidelity to referral pathway) and intervention outcomes (provision of evidence-based care, patient mortality). We interviewed stakeholders at national, pan-regional, and service-levels (n = 125) and analysed 653 documents. Using a framework developed for this study from the implementation science literature, we examined factors influencing implementation approaches; how these approaches interacted with the models selected to influence implementation outcomes; and their relationship to intervention outcomes.RESULTS: London and Manchester's differing implementation outcomes were influenced by the different service models selected and implementation approaches used. Fidelity to the referral pathway was higher in London, where a 'simpler', more inclusive model was used, implemented with a 'big bang' launch and 'hands-on' facilitation by stroke clinical networks. In contrast, a phased approach of a more complex pathway was used in Manchester, and the network acted more as a platform to share learning. Service development occurred more uniformly in London, where service specifications were linked to financial incentives, and achieving standards was a condition of service launch, in contrast to Manchester. 'Hands-on' network facilitation, in the form of dedicated project management support, contributed to achievement of these standards in London; such facilitation processes were less evident in Manchester.CONCLUSIONS: Using acute stroke service centralisation in London and Manchester as an example, interaction between model selected and implementation approaches significantly influenced fidelity to the model. The contrasting implementation outcomes may have affected differences in provision of evidence-based care and patient mortality. The framework used in this analysis may support planning and evaluating major system changes, but would benefit from application in different healthcare contexts.