Features that hindered the capacity development of a national prostate cancer service

Introduction

In Scotland, prostate cancer services have struggled to meet demand, and urological cancer services have missed Scottish Government waiting time targets to a greater extent than other cancer services. This study provides understanding of the capacity development needs of a national prostate cancer service including why the service had been unable to adapt to meet demand and how capacity could be developed.

Methods

Delphi technique was applied to a purposive sample of prostate cancer clinicians working across Scotland between 2015 and 2017. Interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals involved in delivery of care to people with prostate cancer including General Practitioners, followed by questionnaires which were distributed to Specialist Nurses, Oncologists and Urologists involved in delivering specialist prostate cancer services within NHS Scotland. Findings are reported from interviews analysed using a directed approach to content analysis, followed by three rounds of iterative online questionnaires analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Reform is needed to meet demand within prostate cancer services in Scotland. Barriers to capacity development included: lack of shared understanding of quality of care between policy makers and healthcare professionals; lack of leadership of service developments nationally and regionally; and difficulties in drawing on other capacities to support the service. Cohesive working and a need for efficient training for nurse specialists were needed to develop capacity. Consensus was reached for development of national working groups to set standards for quality care (100% agreement) and further development of existing regional working groups (100% agreement) to implement this care (91% agreement), which should include input from primary and community care practitioners (100% agreement) to meet demand.

Discussion

This work provides important understanding of barriers and facilitators to service development across a national service, including highlighting the importance of a shared vision for quality care between policy makers and healthcare professionals. Mechanisms to support service change are identified.

Validation and application of a needs-based segmentation tool for cross-country comparisons

OBJECTIVE

To compare countries' health care needs by segmenting populations into a set of needs-based health states.

DATA SOURCES

We used seven waves of the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) panel survey data.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed the Cross-Country Simple Segmentation Tool (CCSST), a validated clinician-administered instrument for categorizing older individuals by distinct, homogeneous health and related social service needs. Using clinical indicators, self-reported physician diagnosis of chronic disease, and performance-based tests conducted during the survey interview, individuals were assigned to 1-5 global impressions (GI) segments and assessed for having any of the four identifiable complicating factors (CFs). We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of mortality by segment. First, we show the segmentation cross-sectionally to assess cross-country differences in the fraction of individuals with different levels of medical needs. Second, we compare the differences in the rate at which individuals transition between those levels and death.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We segmented 270,208 observations (from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) from 96,396 individuals into GI and CF categories.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The CCSST is a valid tool for segmenting populations into needs-based states, showing Switzerland with the lowest fraction of individuals in high medical needs segments, followed by Denmark and Sweden, and Poland with the highest fraction, followed by Italy and Israel. Comparing hazard ratios of transitioning between health states may help identify country-specific areas for analysis of ecological and cultural risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCSST is an innovative tool for aggregate cross-country comparisons of both health needs and transitions between them. A cross-country comparison gives policy makers an effective means of comparing national health system performance and provides targeted guidance on how to identify strategies for curbing the rise of high-need, high-cost patients.

GP Practices as a One-Stop Shop: How Do Patients Perceive the Quality of Care? A Cross-Sectional Study in Thirty-Four Countries

OBJECTIVE

To contribute to the current knowledge on how a broad range of services offered by general practitioners (GPs) may contribute to the patient perceived quality and, hence, the potential benefits of primary care.

STUDY SETTING

Between 2011 and 2013, primary care data were collected among GPs and their patients in 31 European countries, plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In these countries, GPs are the main providers of primary care, mostly specialized in family medicine and working in the ambulatory setting.

STUDY DESIGN

In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were completed by 7,183 GPs and 61,931 visiting patients. Moreover, 7,270 patients answered questions about what they find important (their values). In the analyses of patient experiences, we adjusted for patients' values in each country to measure patient perceived quality. Perceived quality was measured regarding five areas: accessibility and continuity of care, doctor-patient communication, patient involvement in decision making, and comprehensiveness of care. The range of GP services was measured in relation to four areas: (1) to what extent they are the first contact to the health care system for patients in need of care, (2) their involvement in treatment and follow-up of acute and chronic conditions, in other words treatment of diseases, (3) their involvement in minor technical procedures, and (4) their involvement in preventive treatments.

EXTRACTION METHODS

Data of the patients were linked to the data of the GPs. Multilevel modeling was used to construct scale scores for the experiences of patients in the five areas of quality and the range of services of GPs. In these four-level models, items were nested within patients, nested in GP practices, nested in countries. The relationship between the range of services and the experiences of patients was analyzed in three-level multilevel models, also taking into account the values of patients.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In countries where GPs offer a broader range of services patients perceive better accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care, and more involvement in decision making. No associations were found between the range of services and the patient perceived communication with their GP. The range of GP services mostly explained the variation between countries in the areas of patient perceived accessibility and continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that in countries where GP practices serve as a "one-stop shop," patients perceive better quality of care, especially in the areas of accessibility and continuity of care. Therefore, primary care in a country is expected to benefit from investments in a broader range of services of GPs or other primary care physicians.