Suppr超能文献

评价英格兰国民保健署循证干预计划:一项差分分析。

Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis.

机构信息

Department of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

Health Inequalities Improvement Programme, NHS England, London, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Feb;32(2):90-99. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478. Epub 2022 Apr 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care.

METHOD

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment.

RESULTS

We found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme.

摘要

背景

NHS 英格兰循证干预计划(EBI)于 2019 年 4 月启动,是一项新颖的国家主导倡议,旨在鼓励减少低价值护理的投资。

方法

我们通过使用差异法比较了 2016 年 1 月至 2020 年 2 月期间治疗组(接受 EBI 计划的低价值程序)与对照组(未受 EBI 计划影响但在分析期间被确定为投资对象的控制组)之间的数量变化,以评估该政策的有效性。

结果

我们发现,实施后治疗组和对照组之间只有很小的差异,治疗组的数量减少 0.10%(95%置信区间 0.09%至 0.11%),低于对照组(相当于每月减少 16 例低价值程序)。在实施当月,治疗组的数量减少 0.05%(95%置信区间 0.03%至 0.06%),低于对照组(相当于每月减少 7 例低价值程序)。使用三重差异估计值,我们发现 NHS 医院的数量减少幅度比独立部门提供者大 0.35%(95%置信区间 0.26%至 0.44%)(相当于每月减少 47 例低价值程序)。我们没有发现参与或不参与 EBI 指南试点示范社区的临床委托组之间有显著差异,但发现实施前 2018/19 财年出现亏损的临床委托组的数量减少幅度大 0.06%(95%置信区间 0.04%至 0.08%)(相当于每月减少 4 例低价值程序)。

结论

我们的分析表明,在我们的分析期间,EBI 计划并没有加速其职权范围内的程序的投资退出。然而,我们发现财务和组织因素可能对 EBI 计划的响应程度产生了一些影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6c40/9887378/e72dbe3f8edf/bmjqs-2021-014478f01.jpg

相似文献

1
Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Feb;32(2):90-99. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478. Epub 2022 Apr 7.
2
Provision of NICE-recommended varicose vein treatment in the NHS.
Br J Surg. 2023 Jan 10;110(2):225-232. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac392.
8
10

引用本文的文献

1
Impact of hospital payment reform on rational use of antibiotics: a natural experiment.
Front Public Health. 2025 Sep 1;13:1638346. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1638346. eCollection 2025.
5
Managing unwarranted variation in hospital care - findings from a regional audit in Norway.
Res Health Serv Reg. 2023 Nov 15;2(1):16. doi: 10.1007/s43999-023-00033-7.

本文引用的文献

1
Barriers and facilitators to reduce low-value care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 30;10(10):e040025. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040025.
2
Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions.
Implement Sci. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9.
3
Waste in the US Health Care System: Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings.
JAMA. 2019 Oct 15;322(15):1501-1509. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.13978.
4
A Review of Empirical Analyses of Disinvestment Initiatives.
Value Health. 2017 Jul-Aug;20(7):909-918. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.015. Epub 2017 May 16.
5
Interventions Aimed at Reducing Use of Low-Value Health Services: A Systematic Review.
Med Care Res Rev. 2017 Oct;74(5):507-550. doi: 10.1177/1077558716656970. Epub 2016 Jul 8.
6
In search of professional consensus in defining and reducing low-value care.
Med J Aust. 2015 Aug 17;203(4):179-81. doi: 10.5694/mja14.01664.
8
Does Hospital Competition Save Lives? Evidence from the English NHS Patient Choice Reforms.
Econ J (London). 2011 Aug;121(554):F228-F260. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02449.x.
9
English National Health Service's savings plan may have helped reduce the use of three 'low-value' procedures.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Mar;34(3):381-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0773.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验