4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can proactive support prevent unscheduled care? A controlled observational retrospective cohort study in cancer patients in Scotland

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Preventative spend is a global health and social care strategy. Improving Cancer Journeys (ICJ) is a proactive, holistic, multidisciplinary project consistent with this agenda, currently being rolled out across Scotland and parts of UK. ICJ helps people with cancer access whatever support they need to mitigate their most pressing concerns. This study hypothesised that ICJ service users should subsequently use less unscheduled care than matched cohorts not using ICJ.

          Methods

          Retrospective observational cohort study using linked national datasets. N = 1,214 ICJ users in Glasgow were matched for age, sex, deprivation, cancer type, stage, and diagnosis year to two control groups: 1. Cancer patients from Glasgow before ICJ (pre-2014), 2. Cancer patients from rest of Scotland during study period (2014–2018). Cancer registrations were linked for 12-month baseline and study periods to: NHS24 calls, A&E admissions, inpatient hospital admissions, unscheduled care, number & cost of psychotropic prescriptions. Per-person mean service uses were compared between groups.

          Results

          There was a significant increase in NHS24 calls in the ICJ group (0.36 per person vs. -0.03 or 0.35), more and longer A&E attendances in ICJ (0.37 per person vs. 0.19 or 0.26; 2.19 h per person vs. 0.81–0.92 h), more and longer hospital admissions in ICJ (4.25 vs. 2.59 or 2.53; 12.05 days vs. 8.37 or 8.64), more care pathways involving more steps in ICJ (0.77 spells vs. 0.39 or 0.57; 1.88 steps vs. 1.56 or 1.21), more psychotropic drug prescriptions and higher costs in ICJ (1.88 prescription vs. 1.56 or 1.21; £9.51 vs. £9.57 or £6.95) in comparison to both control groups.

          Discussion

          ICJ users sourced significantly more unscheduled care than matched cohorts. These findings were consistent with much of the comparable literature examining the impact of non-health interventions on subsequent health spend. They also add to the growing evidence showing that ICJ reached its intended target, those with the greatest need. Together these findings raise the possibility that those choosing to use ICJ may also be self-identifying as a cohort of people more likely to use unscheduled care in future. This needs to be tested prospectively, because this understanding would be very helpful for health and social care planners in all countries where proactive holistic services exist.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-10923-2.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

          The effectiveness of spinal surgery as a treatment option is currently evaluated through the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest improvement considered worthwhile by a patient. The concept of an MCID is offered as the new standard for determining effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in reference to that treatment. Our goal is to review the various definitions of MCID and the methods available to determine MCID. The primary means of determining the MCID for a specific treatment are divided into anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Each method is further subdivided and examined in detail. The overall limitations of the MCID concept are first identified. The basic assumptions, statistical biases, and shortcomings of each method are examined in detail. Each method of determining the MCID has specific shortcomings. Three general limitations in the accurate determination of an MCID have been identified: the multiplicity of MCID determinations, the loss of the patient's perspective, and the relationship between pretreatment baseline and posttreatment change scores. An ideal means of determining the MCID for a given intervention is yet to be determined. It is possible to develop a useful method provided that the assumptions and methodology are initially declared. Our efforts toward the establishment of a MCID will rely on the establishment of specific external criteria based on the symptoms of the patient and treatment intervention being evaluated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimally important difference for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form.

              To establish a score threshold that constitutes a clinically relevant change for each domain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Short Form (EPIC-26). Although its use in clinical practice and clinical trials has increased worldwide, the clinical interpretation of this 26-item disease-specific patient-reported quality of life questionnaire for men with localized prostate cancer would be facilitated by characterization of score thresholds for clinically relevant change (the minimally important differences [MIDs]).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.snowden@napier.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                12 April 2024
                12 April 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 457
                Affiliations
                School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, ( https://ror.org/03zjvnn91) Edinburgh, EH11 4BN Scotland
                Article
                10923
                10.1186/s12913-024-10923-2
                11010331
                38609990
                a264393c-3ff0-43f5-8e53-80fa89fb2cf8
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 22 March 2023
                : 28 March 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011715, Macmillan Cancer Support;
                Award ID: na
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Health & Social care
                information management < biotechnology & bioinformatics,organisation of health services < health services administration & management oncology,social medicin,holistic needs assessment (hna)

                Comments

                Comment on this article