ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2559-6483
Current Organisations
University of East Anglia
,
University of Leeds
,
University of York
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 12-2017
DOI: 10.3310/HTA21780
Abstract: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference –0.45, 95% confidence interval –0.65 to –0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 20-03-2013
Abstract: Background. Decision-analytic models are routinely used as a framework for cost-effectiveness analyses of health care services and technologies however, these models mostly ignore resource constraints. In this study, we use a discrete-event simulation model to inform a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative options for the organization and delivery of clinical services in the ophthalmology department of a public hospital. The model is novel, given that it represents both disease outcomes and resource constraints in a routine clinical setting. Methods. A 5-year discrete-event simulation model representing glaucoma patient services at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) was implemented and calibrated to patient-level data. The data were sourced from routinely collected waiting and appointment lists, patient record data, and the published literature. Patient-level costs and quality-adjusted life years were estimated for a range of alternative scenarios, including combinations of alternate follow-up times, booking cycles, and treatment pathways. Results. The model shows that a) extending booking cycle length from 4 to 6 months, b) extending follow-up visit times by 2 to 3 months, and c) using laser in preference to medication are more cost-effective than current practice at the RAH eye clinic. Conclusions. The current simulation model provides a useful tool for informing improvements in the organization and delivery of glaucoma services at a local level (e.g., within a hospital), on the basis of expected effects on costs and health outcomes while accounting for current capacity constraints. Our model may be adapted to represent glaucoma services at other hospitals, whereas the general modeling approach could be applied to many other clinical service areas.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 05-2019
DOI: 10.3310/HSDR07170
Abstract: The increasing difficulty experienced by general practices in meeting patient demand is leading to new approaches being tried, including greater use of telephone consulting. To evaluate a ‘telephone first’ approach, in which all patients requesting a general practitioner (GP) appointment are asked to speak to a GP on the telephone first. The study used a controlled before-and-after (time-series) approach using national reference data sets it also incorporated economic and qualitative elements. There was a comparison between 146 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach and control practices in England with regard to GP Patient Survey scores and secondary care utilisation (Hospital Episode Statistics). A practice manager survey was used in the ‘telephone first’ practices. There was an analysis of practice data and the patient surveys conducted in 20 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach. Interviews were conducted with 43 patients and 49 primary care staff. The study also included an analysis of costs. Following the introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach, the average number of face-to-face consultations in practices decreased by 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 45% p 0.0001], whereas there was a 12-fold increase in telephone consultations (95% CI 6.3-fold to 22.9-fold p 0.0001). The average durations of consultations decreased, which, when combined with the increased number of consultations, we estimate led to an overall increase of 8% in the mean time spent consulting by GPs, although there was a large amount of uncertainty (95% CI –1% to 17% p = 0.0883). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload. Comparing ‘telephone first’ practices with control practices in England in terms of scores in the national GP Patient Survey, there was an improvement of 20 percentage points in responses to the survey question on length of time to get to see or speak to a doctor or nurse. Other responses were slightly negative. The introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach was followed by a small (2%) increase in hospital admissions there was no initial change in accident and emergency (A& E) department attendance, but there was a subsequent small (2%) decrease in the rate of increase in A& E attendances. We found no evidence that the ‘telephone first’ approach would produce net reductions in secondary care costs. Patients and staff expressed a wide range of both positive and negative views in interviews. The ‘telephone first’ approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with on the telephone. However, the approach does not suit all patients and is not a panacea for meeting demand for care, and it is unlikely to reduce secondary care costs. Future research could include identifying how telephone consulting best meets the needs of different patient groups and practices in varying circumstances and how resources can be tailored to predictable patterns of demand. We acknowledge a number of limitations to our approach. We did not conduct a systematic review of the literature, data collected from clinical administrative records were not originally designed for research purposes and for one element of the study we had no control data. In the economic analysis, we relied on practice managers’ perceptions of staff changes attributed to the ‘telephone first’ approach. In our qualitative work and patient survey, we have some evidence that the practices that participated in that element of the study had a more positive patient experience than those that did not. The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Adam Martin.