Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Despite international agreement that stopping low value practices will increase efficiency, identifying them is difficult and controversial. Opponents of centralized lists of low value practices stress that the actual problem is inappropriate low value use, and better targeting and implementation of treatment thresholds is needed. Our objective was to use Cochrane Reviews to identify low value practices to support local disinvestment decisions.

New or updated reviews were included if the authors concluded that the uncertain effectiveness of an intervention meant it should only be used in research, or that it was ineffective or harmful and should not be used. The reviews go through a production and quality assurance process, and are published as ‘Cochrane Quality and Productivity topics’ through the NHS Evidence website (http://www.library.nhs.uk/qipp/).

Over a six-month period, 65 Cochrane reviews were processed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Of these, 28 identified potentially low value practices in the UK context. This was primarily due to a lack of randomized evidence of effectiveness, rather than robust evidence of a lack of effectiveness, or evidence of harm.

Identifying low-value health care practices for local disinvestment (total or partial) is both practically and politically challenging, yet it is necessary to manage health budgets. This project identified that Cochrane Reviews can potentially identify low value health care practices. However, each review has to be reinterpreted for the UK context and additional analysis has to be undertaken to facilitate local implementation. Recommendations to improve the usability of systematic reviews are made.

Previous studies have suggested that greater focus on clinical matters in NHS commissioner and provider Trust Board meetings might improve the range, quality or cost of clinical care. This study reports the extent of clinical focus in Board meetings in three types of NHS Trust and considers the implications for public accountability.

(1) Content analysis of published minutes of Board meetings from 105 randomly selected NHS Trusts in 2008/09. (2) Structured observation of 24 Board meetings in a qualitative sub-sample of eight of the above Trusts in 2008/09.

The percentage of clinical items among the items discussed by NHS Trust Boards ranged from 0% to 51%, but did not differ by Trust type. Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) recorded more items than NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts because of PCTs’ dual role as service providers and commissioners. There were significant differences between Trusts’ board meetings in the numbers of clinical items concerning service design, clinical outcomes and activity levels. The availability and accessibility of supposedly publicly-available minutes from NHS Foundation Trust Board meetings was sometimes problematic. Observation of meetings revealed a number of dynamics not evident in the minutes. Board meetings were generally chair-led (conducted according to the chair's discretion); collegial; had similar levels and extent of discussion from the non-executive directors, with a focus on current policy initiatives. Boards differed in the extent of public questioning, how they exercised internal governance over the provision and quality of patient care, and the extent of pre-planning before the Board meeting. Published minutes were not always an accurate record of meetings.

Findings illuminate important transparency issues which should be given careful consideration in the English NHS.

To determine the cost of medicines for selected chronic illnesses and the proportion of discretionary income this would potentially displace for households with different pharmaceutical subsidy entitlements and incomes.

We analysed household income and expenditure data for 9,774 households participating in two Australian surveys in 2009-10. The amount of ‘discretionary’ income available to households after basic living and health care expenditure was modelled for households with high pharmaceutical subsidies: pensioner and non-pensioner concessional (social security entitlements); and households with general pharmaceutical subsidies and low, middle or high incomes. We calculated the proportion of discretionary income that would be needed for medicines if one household member had diabetes or acute coronary syndrome, or if one member also had two co-existing illnesses (gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and depression, or asthma and osteoarthritis).

Pensioner and low income households had little discretionary income after basic living and health care expenditure (AUD$92 and $164/week, respectively). Medicines for the specified illnesses ranged from $11-$42/month for high subsidy households and $34-$186/month for low subsidy households. Costs reduced substantially once patients reached the annual pharmaceutical cap (safety net), prior to which medicine costs would displace the equivalent of 1%-10% of discretionary income for most household types. However, low income households would have to forego the equivalent of between 5%-26% of their discretionary income for between 7 and 9 months of the year before receiving additional subsidies.

Prescription medicines for chronic conditions pose a substantial financial burden to many households, particularly those with low incomes and general pharmaceutical subsidies. Policies are needed to minimize the cost burden of prescription medicines, particularly for low-income working households.

To investigate patients’ experiences of health and social care services in long-term neurological conditions in England.

Cross-sectional survey of 5209 patient members of the Motor Neurone Disease Association (MND, n = 890), Multiple Sclerosis Society (MS, n = 2345) or Parkinson's UK (PD, n = 1974). A questionnaire on patient experiences of health and social care was completed by 2563 (49%) (505 MND, 1157 MS and 901 PD).

A mixed picture of experiences of health and social care in MND, MS or PD was found with few problems reported for some aspects of services such as obtaining information about medication (n = 117, 6.1%). In contrast, problems with planning and integration of care were reported frequently, with 78.0% of patients not having a care plan and 61.9% reporting that services do not collaborate well in planning care. Other problems included delays with diagnosis, information about medication side effects, and management of conditions whilst in hospital. Significant differences between the three conditions were found for most aspects of care, with MND patients generally reporting fewer problems.

The findings highlight which areas of health and social care need to be improved and monitored. While a larger sample size was obtained than in other studies, possible limitations include the sampling frame and the 49% response rate.

Planning and integration of care are key areas that require improvement.