The impact of NHS outsourcing of elective care to the independent sector on outcomes for patients, healthcare professionals and the United Kingdom health care system: A rapid narrative review of literature.

Delivery of health care Independent sector Patient reported outcome measures Waiting lists Workforce

Journal

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
ISSN: 1872-6054
Titre abrégé: Health Policy
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8409431

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 08 05 2024
revised: 13 08 2024
accepted: 12 09 2024
medline: 12 10 2024
pubmed: 12 10 2024
entrez: 11 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The NHS is increasingly turning to the independent sector, primarily to alleviate elective care backlogs. However, implications for the healthcare system, patients and staff are not well understood. This paper provides a rapid narrative review of research evidence on NHS-funded elective care in the independent sector (IS) and the impact on patients, professionals, and the health care system. The aim was to identify the volume and evaluate the quality of the literature whilst providing a narrative synthesis. Studies were identified through Medline, CINAHL, Econlit, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The quality of the included studies was assessed in relation to study design, sample size, relevance, methodology and methodological strength, outcomes and outcome reporting, and risk of bias. Our review included 40 studies of mixed quality. Many studies used quantitative data to analyse outcome trends across and between sectors. Independent sector providers (ISPs) can provide high-volume and low-complexity elective care of equivalent quality to the NHS, whilst reducing waiting times in certain contexts. However it is clear that the provision of NHS-funded elective care in the IS has a range of implications for public provision. These surround access and outcome inequalities, financial sustainability and NHS workforce impacts. It will subsequently be important for future empirical work to incorporate these caveats, providing a more nuanced interpretation of quantitative improvements.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39393210
pii: S0168-8510(24)00176-3
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105166
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

105166

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest None.

Auteurs

Simon Fletcher (S)

Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, United Kingdom. Electronic address: s.fletcher@kent.ac.uk.

Oya Eddama (O)

Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, United Kingdom. Electronic address: o.eddama@kent.ac.uk.

Michael Anderson (M)

Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, University of Manchester, United Kingdom; LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom. Electronic address: michael.anderson-3@manchester.ac.uk.

Rachel Meacock (R)

Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: rachel.meacock@manchester.ac.uk.

Vasudha Wattal (V)

Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: vasudha.wattal@manchester.ac.uk.

Pauline Allen (P)

Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom. Electronic address: pauline.allen@lshtm.ac.uk.

Stephen Peckham (S)

Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, United Kingdom; NIHR ARC KSS (Ref: NIHR 200179). Electronic address: s.peckham@kent.ac.uk.

Classifications MeSH