Determinants of quality in the independent and public hospital sectors in England.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Harriet Bullen, Vasudha Wattal, Rachel Meacock, Matt Sutton
{"title":"Determinants of quality in the independent and public hospital sectors in England.","authors":"Harriet Bullen, Vasudha Wattal, Rachel Meacock, Matt Sutton","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzaf019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing the use of independent providers has been proposed as a solution to the long waiting times at public hospitals generated by the postpandemic backlog for elective care. However, the profit-maximizing aims of some independent providers may risk cost-cutting behaviours and reduced care quality. Empirical evidence on the extent to which these concerns are borne out in practice is sparse. We aim to examine the quality of acute hospital care provided by the public and independent hospital sectors in England and explore the drivers of variation in quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We construct a unique dataset collating publicly available Care Quality Commission (CQC) quality ratings of independent and public acute hospitals as of December 2022 and 2020. We link these to regional deprivation indices, population estimates, average household disposable incomes, and referral to treatment (RTT) data. We first categorize providers into National Health Service (NHS) and independent hospitals to analyse the association of ownership with quality ratings. To analyse ownership further, we then subcategorize independent hospitals further and consider whether the organization provides NHS-commissioned care. Thus, hospitals were categorized into seven mutually exclusive categories: NHS provider, commissioned charity, commissioned brand, commissioned independent other, noncommissioned charity, noncommissioned brand, and noncommissioned independent other. We use linear and ordered logistic regression models to assess the association of ownership with quality ratings. In supplementary analysis, we examine consistency over time by comparing the effects on 2022 ratings and 2020 ratings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 283 NHS hospitals, 47.3% (N = 134) was rated 'Good' and 41.0% (N = 116) was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. Of the 453 independent hospitals, 82.3% (N = 373) was rated 'Good' and 9.5% (N = 43) was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. On average, independent hospitals had 0.205 (Standard Error [SE] = 0.0581) higher category quality ratings than NHS providers. All types of NHS-commissioned independent sector hospitals had higher average quality ratings than NHS hospitals, as did noncommissioned branded hospitals. Quality ratings were negatively related to the number of different services provided, suggesting that specialization is associated with higher quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We find higher quality ratings for independent providers providing NHS-funded care, branded providers, and providers with a narrower range of services. We find no evidence to suggest that outsourced patients will experience lower quality care, although cream-skimming could still be detrimental for NHS services if they are left with a more complex case mix. Overall, our results taken together suggest that the increasing number of NHS patients treated in the independent sector does not experience a worse quality of care, especially if providers specialize in a limited number of services.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11932141/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaf019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Increasing the use of independent providers has been proposed as a solution to the long waiting times at public hospitals generated by the postpandemic backlog for elective care. However, the profit-maximizing aims of some independent providers may risk cost-cutting behaviours and reduced care quality. Empirical evidence on the extent to which these concerns are borne out in practice is sparse. We aim to examine the quality of acute hospital care provided by the public and independent hospital sectors in England and explore the drivers of variation in quality.

Methods: We construct a unique dataset collating publicly available Care Quality Commission (CQC) quality ratings of independent and public acute hospitals as of December 2022 and 2020. We link these to regional deprivation indices, population estimates, average household disposable incomes, and referral to treatment (RTT) data. We first categorize providers into National Health Service (NHS) and independent hospitals to analyse the association of ownership with quality ratings. To analyse ownership further, we then subcategorize independent hospitals further and consider whether the organization provides NHS-commissioned care. Thus, hospitals were categorized into seven mutually exclusive categories: NHS provider, commissioned charity, commissioned brand, commissioned independent other, noncommissioned charity, noncommissioned brand, and noncommissioned independent other. We use linear and ordered logistic regression models to assess the association of ownership with quality ratings. In supplementary analysis, we examine consistency over time by comparing the effects on 2022 ratings and 2020 ratings.

Results: Of the 283 NHS hospitals, 47.3% (N = 134) was rated 'Good' and 41.0% (N = 116) was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. Of the 453 independent hospitals, 82.3% (N = 373) was rated 'Good' and 9.5% (N = 43) was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. On average, independent hospitals had 0.205 (Standard Error [SE] = 0.0581) higher category quality ratings than NHS providers. All types of NHS-commissioned independent sector hospitals had higher average quality ratings than NHS hospitals, as did noncommissioned branded hospitals. Quality ratings were negatively related to the number of different services provided, suggesting that specialization is associated with higher quality.

Conclusion: We find higher quality ratings for independent providers providing NHS-funded care, branded providers, and providers with a narrower range of services. We find no evidence to suggest that outsourced patients will experience lower quality care, although cream-skimming could still be detrimental for NHS services if they are left with a more complex case mix. Overall, our results taken together suggest that the increasing number of NHS patients treated in the independent sector does not experience a worse quality of care, especially if providers specialize in a limited number of services.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信