Research in Health Services & Regions (Feb 2024)
Variations and value improvement in back pain care in one area of England
Abstract
Abstract The pursuit of value and equity have been put on a legal footing in the NHS with the arrival of the legal duty for all in the NHS to improve health and well-being of the population served, to provide fair access to high quality healthcare, and to use resources sustainably and efficiently. Recognising this we used analysis of variation to help us understand the degree to which we were fulfilling our new duty for people with back pain in Mid-Nottinghamshire and where there might be opportunities for value improvement. MSK Together is a group of clinical and managerial representatives from providers, purchasers, local government, and patients who work collectively to optimise the use of resources for people with MSK conditions in Mid-Nottinghamshire. Back pain is the third largest burden of disease in the locality, and the largest cause of disability, so it is of strategic importance to MSK Together—we wanted to know about, and act on, opportunities for value improvement across the population of people with back pain. In 2019/20, after adjusting for age and sex, we found a greater than three-fold variation among general practices in age-sex standardised rates of all hospital service usage for back pain conditions. When looking at a four-year period (2016/17–2019/20), the observed variation increased to eight-fold for (with narrow 95% confidence intervals). When looking at procedures (e.g., surgery or injections), the standardised variation among general practices was six-fold in 2019/20. The deprivation score of the general practice (a heterogenous measure given the mixed neighbourhoods many general practices serve) showed little correlation to the rates observed and did not appear to justify the variation. When we looked at the deprivation of the neighbourhood from which the individuals receiving back pain procedures came, there appeared to be a weak correlation in terms of lower rates of intervention in the least-deprived compared with the most-deprived communities. This correlation was not tested statistically. People receiving hospital services for back pain appeared to receive the first episode of care most often in their 40s (working age), compared with people from the least-deprived areas who received care most commonly in their 60s (approaching retirement). When we looked at the interventions provided in Mid-Nottinghamshire for back pain, 29 interventions were provided to 17,225 people. Using a recent NICE evaluation of cost-effectiveness of back pain interventions, we established that, of these 29 interventions, 16 have evidence of improving the quality of life, for nine there was no evidence of benefit or harm, for three there was evidence that they do not provide an improvement in quality of life, and for one there was possible evidence of harm. The total cost of interventions was estimated at £4.5 million and, using the evidence from the NICE review, the total quality adjusted life year (QALY) gain to the treated population of people with back pain was calculated to be 4,571 QALYs. After discussions among the MSK Together group, it was agreed that some interventions could be stopped or scaled down, and new interventions introduced (in particular, in more-deprived neighbourhoods). Within the same estimated cost envelope of £4.5 million, the QALY gain was predicted to increase to 7702 QALYs and, by targeting QALY-related interventions to people from deprived neighbourhoods, reduce inequity (and therefore health inequalities). Using variation helped us identify areas for improvement and generated a momentum for change among the MSK Together group. By examining what we were doing, the associated costs, and the likely QALY benefits (from research evidence), we identified lower value interventions to stop or reduce and new interventions to introduce, achieving greater health gain for people with back pain with no additional resource requirements.
Keywords
