Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Holly Holder & Ian Blunt: Integrated care pilot evaluation


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

Holly Holder & Ian Blunt: Integrated care pilot evaluation

  1. 1. © Nuffield Trust Inner North West London Integrated Care Pilot – year one evaluation 8 July 2013 Holly Holder Fellow in health policy Ian Blunt Senior Research Analyst
  2. 2. © Nuffield Trust© Nuffield Trust What is the inner North West London Integrated Care Pilot?
  3. 3. © Nuffield Trust Aims of the pilot Large-scale programme to improve the coordination of care for people over 75 years of age and/or adults living with diabetes. Aims: •Improve outcomes for patients •Create access to better, more integrated care outside hospital •Reduce unnecessary hospital admissions •Enable effective working of professionals across provider boundaries
  4. 4. © Nuffield Trust Setting up the pilot Started in July 2011 Initial £10m investment from NHS London Involved organisations: • Five local authorities • Three acute hospitals • Two community hospitals • 104 general practices • Representatives from Age UK and Diabetes UK Area covers 550k patients
  5. 5. © Nuffield Trust At the local level – multi-disciplinary groups
  6. 6. © Nuffield Trust Our evaluation Evaluation of the first year active Sept 2011 – July 2012 Four strands of research, in partnership with Imperial College Department of Primary Care and Public Health
  7. 7. © Nuffield Trust© Nuffield Trust Key findings on Strategic implementation & context and Patient & professional experience
  8. 8. © Nuffield Trust Qualitative data collection Data collection methods Number completed Semi-structured interviews with senior leaders of the pilot & participating organisations and other health policy experts 37 Focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers 4 Survey of healthcare professionals 51 completed in full (25.5% response rate) Survey of service users enrolled in the pilot 405 completed in full (20.25% response rate) Observation of IMB meetings and meetings of its committees 30 hours Observation of MDG meetings (of which ten hours were transcribed, coded and analysed in detail) 20 hours Semi-structured interviews with GPs about the influence of the ICP on diagnosis rates Seven general practices
  9. 9. © Nuffield Trust Strategic implementation What worked well? •Successful engagement of organisations from across health and social care, assisted by a clear vision of aims •Sophisticated governance structures critical for engagement of organisations •Financial incentives important for bringing people on board Challenges •Balancing local autonomy with overall accountability •Symbolic financial incentives •Achieving more direct engagement of service users
  10. 10. © Nuffield Trust Patient and professional experience What worked well? •Health professionals had a high level of commitment to the pilot, in particular the care planning process •Care planning and Multi Disciplinary Groups improved collaboration and levels of professional knowledge Challenges •Majority of patients had not experienced any changes •Care planning IT tool led to dissatisfaction amongst many practitioners. Over half of professionals felt workloads had increased
  11. 11. © Nuffield Trust© Nuffield Trust Impacts on service use and cost - evaluation using predictive risk techniques
  12. 12. © Nuffield Trust Quantitative data collection and three-armed approach The general population of inner North West London and the pilot’s target population: •Observed activity using administrative data sets •Contrasted to other areas of London and nationally A fixed cohort of patients who had received a care plan compared to individuals with similar population characteristics: •Observed changes associated with ‘usual care’ •Matched control group identified by: predictive risk score for emergency hospital admission, age, sex, prior hospital utilisation, health conditions etc Patients with care plan by end 2011 (1,494) Patients eligible for ICP (35,607) All patients in ICP practices (502,920)
  13. 13. © Nuffield Trust Emergency admissions for ‘ICP eligible’ patients
  14. 14. © Nuffield Trust Distinct emergency admission patterns by financial year in the main provider FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12
  15. 15. © Nuffield Trust Analysis at person level Months >>> Analysis at practice level gives insight into overall patterns of service use… … but much more powerful to take patients known to have received a specific intervention and generate person level controls
  16. 16. © Nuffield Trust Recruitment and statistical power Problem of early evaluation Recruitment starts only after ICP has established itself Patients need some follow-up time We have 3 month data lag Performing analysis after end of first year – only 1495 eligible patients
  17. 17. © Nuffield Trust Summary measures on matching Matches drawn from population of similar PCTs Controls well matched in all categories
  18. 18. © Nuffield Trust Output indicators for cases and controls +0.09 (p=0.519) -18 (p=0.758)
  19. 19. © Nuffield Trust© Nuffield Trust Final thoughts
  20. 20. © Nuffield Trust Understanding year one of the iNWL ICP • ICP is an ambitious programme of transformational change, being implemented at a time of major reform in the NHS • Substantial progress was made in designing and implementing a highly complex intervention, and had brought together diverse health and social care providers • However, it was in the early stages of change and it was too early to demonstrate benefits in terms of service use and patient outcomes • After year one a second pilot in outer North West London has been established. Move towards a more ambitious ‘whole systems’ approach based on risk stratification rather than disease pathways, in both pilots
  21. 21. © Nuffield Trust Lessons for evaluation • International evidence suggests a minimum of three to five years before there is an impact on activity, patient experience and outcomes • Important to time evaluation accordingly and manage expectations on when changes might become apparent (and detectable) • However there is value in continuous monitoring of outcomes, particularly when contrasting change within the local context with what is happening elsewhere
  22. 22. © Nuffield Trust Further information first-year-inner-north-west-london-integrated-care-pilot
  23. 23. © Nuffield Trust26 July 2013 Sign-up for our newsletter Follow us on Twitter: © Nuffield Trust Insert presenter’s email address here