Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32595094›Full record

ArticleHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2020

New integrated care models in England associated with small reduction in hospital admissions in longer-term: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Marcello Morciano, Katherine Checkland, Jenny Billings, Anna Coleman, Jonathan Stokes, Charles Tallack, Matt Sutton

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Complements or substitutes? Associations between volumes of care provided in the community and hospitals.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marcello MorcianoHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. Electronic address: marcello.morciano@manchester.ac.uk.
Katherine ChecklandHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Jenny BillingsCentre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NF, United Kingdom.
Anna ColemanHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Jonathan StokesHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Charles TallackResearch and Economic Analysis for the Long Term (REAL) Centre, The Health Foundation, London, EC4Y 8AP, United Kingdom.
Matt SuttonHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
University of Manchester · GBHealth Foundation · GBUniversity of Kent · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Closer integration of health and social care services has become a cornerstone policy in many developed countries, but there is still debate over what population and service level is best to target. In England, the 2019 Long Term Plan for the National Health Service included a commitment to spread the integration prototypes piloted under the Vanguard `New Care Models' programme. The programme, running from 2015 to 2018, was one of the largest pilots in English history, covering around 9 % of the population. It was largely intended to design prototypes aimed at reducing hospital utilisation by moving specialist care out of hospital into the community and by fostering coordination of health, care and rehabilitation services for (i) the whole population ('population-based sites'), or (ii) care home residents ('care home sites'). We evaluate and compare the efficacy of the population-based and care home site integrated care models in reducing hospital utilisation. We use area-level monthly counts of emergency admissions and bed-days obtained from administrative data using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design. We found that Vanguard sites had higher hospital utilisation than non-participants in the pre-intervention period. In the post-intervention period, there is clear evidence of a substantial increase in emergency admissions among non-Vanguard sites. The Vanguard integrated care programme slowed the rise in emergency admissions, especially in care home sites and in the third and final year. There was no significant reduction in bed-days. In conclusion, integrated care policies should not be relied upon to make large reductions in hospital activity in the short-run, especially for population-based models.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedState MedicineEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandHospitalsHumansCare homesEnglandHospital admissionsIntegrated careNew Care ModelsVanguard

Identifiers

PMID32595094
PMCPMC7386936
OpenAlexW3033008814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.