Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30866917›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

The impact of a combinatorial digital and organisational intervention on the management of long-term conditions in UK primary care: a non-randomised evaluation.

David G Lugo-Palacios, Jonathan Hammond, Thomas Allen, Sarah Darley, Ruth McDonald, Thomas Blakeman, Peter Bower

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David G Lugo-PalaciosManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Jonathan HammondCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Thomas AllenManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. thomas.allen@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2972-7911
Sarah DarleyCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Ruth McDonaldCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research and Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Thomas BlakemanNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale CCG N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBetter management of long-term conditions remains a policy priority, with a focus on improving outcomes and reducing use of expensive hospital services. A number of interventions have been tested, but many have failed to show benefit in rigorous comparative research. In 2016, the NHS Test Beds scheme was launched to implement and test interventions combining digital technologies and pathway redesign in routine health care settings, with each intervention comprising multiple innovations to better realise benefit from their 'combinatorial' effect. We present the evaluation of one of the NHS Test Beds, which combined risk stratification algorithms, practice-based quality improvement and health monitoring and coaching to improve management of long-term conditions in a single health economy in the north-west of England.

methodsThe NHS Test Bed was implemented in one clinical commissioning group in the north-west of England (patient population 235,800 served by 36 general practices). Routine administrative data on hospital use (the primary outcome) and a selection of secondary outcomes (data from both hospital and primary care) were collected in the intervention site, and from a comparator area in the same region. We used difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes in the NHS Test Bed area and the comparator after initiation of the combinatorial intervention.

resultsTests confirmed the existence of parallel trends in the intervention and comparator sites for hospital outcomes for the period April 2016 to March 2017, and for some of the planned primary care outcomes. Based on 10 months of post-intervention secondary care data and 13 months post-intervention primary care data, we found no significant impact on primary outcomes between the intervention and comparator site, and a significant impact on only one secondary outcome.

conclusionA combinatorial digital and organisational intervention to improve the management of long-term conditions was implemented across a whole health economy, but we found no evidence of a positive impact on health care utilisation outcomes in hospital and primary care.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseEnglandFacilities and Services UtilizationHospitalizationHumansLong-Term CarePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareProgram EvaluationQuality ImprovementTelemedicineCombinatorial interventionManagement of long-term conditionsNHS test bedsPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID30866917
PMCPMC6416963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.