ArticleBMC health services research2008
Case-mix & patients' reports of outcome in Independent Sector Treatment Centres: Comparison with NHS providers.
Article in BMC health services research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the accessibility, acceptability, safety, efficiency, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of private cataract and orthopedic surgery clinics.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Pooled it
- Determinants of quality in the independent and public hospital sectors in England.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Impact on healthcare and operational outcomes of outsourcing to a private value-based provider: analysis of tertiary hospitals in the Community of Madrid.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Patient outcomes, efficiency, and adverse events for elective hip and knee replacement in private and NHS hospitals: a population-based cohort study in England.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- The Eye-Opening Truth About Private Surgical Facilities in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2024Article
- Antibiotic utilisation in primary and revision total hip replacement patients: A registry linkage cohort study of 106 253 patients using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023Article
- Outcomes for surgical procedures funded by the English health service but carried out in public versus independent hospitals: a database study.BMJ quality & safety · 2022Article
- The Different Classification of Hospitals Impact on Medical Outcomes of Patients in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Divided by choice? For-profit providers, patient choice and mechanisms of patient sorting in the English National Health Service.Health economics · 2021Article
- Independent Treatment Centres Are Not a Guarantee for High Quality and Low Healthcare Prices in The Netherlands - A Study of 5 Elective Surgeries.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- An ecological study of NHS funded elective hip arthroplasties in England from 2003/04 to 2012/13.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Article
- Multidimensional performance assessment of public sector organisations using dominance criteria.Health economics · 2018Article
- Article
- Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?Journal of health economics · 2016Article
- Article
- Article
- The effect of new oral anticoagulants and extended thromboprophylaxis policy on hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes: observational study.Arthroplasty today · 2015Article
- Mortality, length of stay, and inpatient charges for heart failure patients at public versus private hospitals in South Korea.Yonsei medical journal · 2015Article
- Opening the oyster: the 2010-11 NHS reforms in England.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2012Article
- Outcomes of elective surgery undertaken in independent sector treatment centres and NHS providers in England: audit of patient outcomes in surgery.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been considerable concern expressed about the outcomes achieved in Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) introduced in England since 2003. Our aim was to compare the case-mix and patients' reported outcomes of surgery in ISTCs and in NHS providers.
methodsProspective cohort study of 769 patients treated in six ISTCs and 1895 treated in 20 NHS providers (acute hospitals and treatment centres) in England during 2006-07. Participants underwent one of three day surgery procedures (inguinal hernia repair, varicose vein surgery, cataract extraction) or hip or knee replacement. Change in patient-reported health status and health related quality of life (measured using a disease-specific and a generic (EQ-5D) instrument) was assessed either 3-months (day surgery) or 6-months (hip/knee) after surgery. In addition patient-reported post-operative complications and an overall assessment of success of surgery were collected. Outcome measures were adjusted (using multivariable regression) for patient characteristics (disease severity, duration of symptoms, age, sex, socioeconomic status, general health, previous similar surgery, comorbidity).
resultsPost-operative response rates varied by procedure (73%-88%) and were similar for those treated in ISTCs and NHS facilities. Patients treated in ISTCs were healthier, were less likely to have any comorbidity and, for those undergoing cataract surgery or joint replacement, their primary condition was less severe. Those undergoing hernia repair or joint replacement were less likely to have had similar surgery before. When adjustment was made for pre-operative characteristics, patients undergoing cataract surgery or hip replacement in ISTCs achieved a slightly greater improvement in functional status and quality of life than those treated in NHS facilities, while the opposite was true of patients undergoing hernia repair. No significant differences were found for the two other procedures. Patients treated in ISTCs were less likely to report post-operative problems than those treated in NHS facilities for cataract surgery (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.70), hernia repair (0.42; 0.28-0.63) and knee replacement (0.44; 0.28-0.69). Most patients described the result of their operation as excellent, very good or good, regardless of where they were treated.
conclusionThe case-mix of patients treated in ISTCs differs from that in NHS providers, in line with the intention of the contracts. Caution is needed in interpreting the observation that patients treated in ISTCs reported slightly better outcomes as very few ISTCs participated, case-mix adjustment might have been insufficient, and patients' reports might have been biased as they were more likely to be satisfied with the way they were treated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.