Specialist services Maximising value - the fourth priority

This one is a horror story!

"Maximising value and patient outcomes from specialised commissioning"

In CCG speak:

"Identify opportunities for modifying pathways, standardising thresholds and increasing prevention to reduce spend and increase value"

Well that is a mouthful! Lots of jargon and management speak in that statement.

What do I think?  I think it is all about reducing the cost of providing specialist care. This is the sort of care that is not done in our local hospitals. The sort of specialist treatment I am getting as I write this.  I have to declare an interest here!

There is always opportunities to improve the path us patients take through the system. We need to reduce the number of times we move between different parts of the system. This is a good thing. But it is not new and has been going on for years. But this must be done in partnership with the patients.

The interesting phrase is 'standardising thresholds'. What do they mean? I think it means they want to make it more difficult for GPs to refer us to the specialist centres. At  the moment many treatments are provided after the patient has ticked the boxes. The condition has to be severe enough for the CCG to fund it. Patients have to apply to the CCG for an 'individual funding review' when the CCG will look at each case before making a decision. This could be extended.

I am not sure what they mean by increasing prevention and I assume this is linked to priority 1.

As I said earlier it seems that the emphasis for this priority is on reducing cost.

What is STP and what does it mean for Buckinghamshire?

The STP is is short for Sustainability and Transformation Plan. However I guess that doesn't really help does it?

Well it is really the last hope we have to save the NHS because the Government does not want to spend any more of our tax on our healthcare. So instead they want to split England into 44 regions and have told these regions to changes the way services are provided. Our region includes Oxfordshire, West Berkshire as well as Buckinghamshire. But really our plan is a Buckinghamshire plan.

Apparently if we continue to carry out healthcare activity in the way we have been doing it over the last 20 years it will cost £107 million more over the next 5 years than we have money to pay for it. The costs will be much more than our income!

The aims of the plan is to improve outcomes by 2020/21.

The Bucks plan has seven priority areas.

I will try to  explain what they mean - but I cannot promise that my view is the correct one so I suggest you write and ask for the official version.

The Famous seven are:

"Shift the focus of care from treatment to prevention"
"Access to the highest quality primary, community and urgent care"
"Collaboration of the three footprint acute trusts to deliver equality and efficiency"
"Maximise value and patient outcomes from specialised commissioning"
"Mental health development to improve the overall value of care provided"
"Establish a flexible and collaborative approach to workforce"
"Digital interoperability to improve information flow and efficiency"

You can see that the language is a bit 'management speak' and I will try to explain what I think each one means as best I can. I will do a separate blog for each priority.

I write this on a ward in a specialist centre as I wait for my operation tomorrow. I hope that I will be able to complete all seven blogs over the next week as I recover.

Measuring improvement in the quality of care after reconfiguration of NHS services

I asked a question at a public meeting of our local Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. They have a slot for questions from the public.  I asked if the PCT and hospital would provide a baseline from which to measure the improvement in care promised as a result of the centralising of services on one hospital site.   

I have posted a couple of stories about the difficulty I have had in getting an answer to this relatively simple but important question:  "Like getting blood from a stone" & "What is a 'benefits realisation'?".  I finally arranged a meeting with the hospital managers who are delivering the data. It is really important to talk to the right people.

They were very helpful and, despite being busy implementing the changes, they spared an hour of their time to talk with me about how they are measuring the quality of care.  They reassured me that they have plenty of quantitative data, such as re-admission rates, length of stay, avoidable admissions and mortality rates from before the changes and they will be collecting similar data from the newly reconfigured services.   Now that is good news.

They will not be publishing the data until they have the first set of new data so that there can be a comparison made between the old and the new.   This data will be collected routinely and published regularly. More good news.

We had a discussion about how to present the results in a form that the patients and public can understand.  Not an easy problem to solve. 

We also talked about using qualitative data from the patient experience to complement the hard numbers.  Now I think that the patient experience is a really good test of quality.  The government thinks so too because the 'Friends and Family' test depends on patients feeling they had a 'good' experience in a hospital.  I am not sure that any time spent in hospital can be considered good though.  This sort of data is more difficult to get and use but we agreed that it is important as the patient can have a different perspective compared to a healthcare professional or a manager. 

The hospital has been collecting this sort of information for some years and they said that they will be using it in the baseline measure as well as in the future. 

So my question has been answered at last and I feel reasonably certain that they have the data, both quantitative and qualitative, to measure the quality of the services in some way. 

What will be more interesting is what will the patients and public make of it?  Do they care about tables and charts showing that the number of people re-admitted within 28 days has been reduced by 5%?  Will they care that 95% of patients in a recent survey said that they had a satisfactory experience in the hospital?  Will they use this data to compare the quality of different service providers? Will quality information from other providers be comparable? 

Only time will tell.

What is happening to my hospital?

I guess lots of people around the UK are asking this question?

All around the country NHS managers and doctors are proposing to change the way services are provided in our local District General Hospitals. These much loved hospitals, with a loyal following of local people, are having the services they provide reduced or moved to another hospital.  Beds are being cut, wards being closed.

What is happening and why?

Reduction in beds and ward closures.

It is claimed modern medicine is done in different ways now compared to even 20 years ago and so there is no need for so many hospital beds. The time spent in hospital is shorter, more surgery is done as day cases and more patients are managed at home or in the community.  This means that the managers believe that hospitals mean fewer beds.

Closure of A& E Departments.

The experts from the medical  Royal Colleges tell us that A&E departments need more specialist doctors and nurses to provide a safe service 24/7.  Hospitals also have to meet the 4 hr target for waiting in A&E. So rather than employ more staff (There is a national shortage of A&E consultants anyway) the managers are merging A & E departments and closing some down.  This is happening all around the country.

Centralising services (reconfiguration and redesign).

The Royal Colleges tell us that to ensure high quality care is provided the doctors and nurses have to see enough patients to keep up their levels of skill and experience.  In many cases our local hospitals do not have enough patients so the departments are merged and moved to another hospital, perhaps in the next town. This process is called service reconfiguration or service redesign and is taking place in most hospitals across the country.

Hospital mergers.

An extreme situation is the closure of a whole hospital and merging it with a bigger hospital. This is happening in big cities.

What is happening in Buckinghamshire?

There are two district general hospital, managed as a single hospital, in Buckinghamshire, in the two big population centres, High Wycombe and Aylesbury.  Before they were merged the two hospital provided a full NHS service for inpatients and outpatients.  Since the merger there have been several proposals for change with all the associated consultations with the public. A number of services have already been moved to one site (stroke and Cardiology).  The performance of the stroke service for acute patients has improved as a result of the creation of a Hyper Acute Stroke Unit at Wycombe.

Now the mangers are implementing the next round of changes following a public consultation called 'Better Healthcare in Buckinghamshire'. http://www.buckspct.nhs.uk/bhib/

The following changes are now being implemented:
A&E consultant teams are being centralised at Stoke Mandeville Hospital (SMH), Aylesbury.
Reduce the Emergency Medical Centre at High Wycombe to a Minor Injuries and Illness Unit (The A&E was closed earlier).
Centralise specialist inpatient care for emergency medicine , respiratory, gastroenterology, medicine for older people and diabetes at SMH.
Centralise breast cancer services at Wycombe.
Transfer complex vascular surgery to Oxford but retain routine vascular surgery.

There are other service improvements planned such as a day assessment unit for elderly patients, a step down ward and admission avoidance services.

How do people feel about these changes?

Local residents in High Wycombe are concerned that they will no longer have an A&E department even though they are next to the M40 and the town has a population af about 100,000 people.
They feel that the hospital is being run down as services are centralised at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury (15 miles away along country roads). Following the latest consultation the PCT and the Hospital, together with the county Council, are looking at the transport infrastructure in the county, especially for those who live in the outlying villages. It seems amazing that this was done at the time the proposal was developed!  The NHS considered that transport was the responsibility of the Council and so did not address the issue at the time. The patients see things differently.

Local campaigner felt the changes were to save money and to reduce the size of the hospital. They see the changes as the thin end of the wedge leading to eventual closure.The PCT and hospital managers insisted that the changes were all about improving clinical quality.  The changes had nothing to do with reducing expenditure.

People do not believe them.

I have asked for information on how we will know that the quality of care has improved (see my earlier blog "Getting blood from a stone".  They have a 'Benefits Realisation Plan' but I think the public need something they can understand. I have a meeting soon with the hospital and I will update this blog after the meeting. 

The question that needs to be asked about all these proposals is:

Do people want a gold standard service and have to travel some distance to get it or do they want local access to a hospital and have care at a reduced quality?