Effect of NHS surgical hubs on elective primary hip-and-knee replacement volume, length of stay and waiting times: national longitudinal difference-in-differences study
Wen, J.; Anteneh, Z.; Castelli, A.; Street, A.; Gutacker, N.; Scantlebury, A.; Glerum-Brooks, K.; Davies, S.; Bloor, K.; Rangan, A.; Castro Avila, A.; Lampard, P.; Adamson, J.; Sivey, P.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of surgical hubs on the volume of surgeries, patient waiting times, and length of hospital stay for elective hip and knee replacements in the English NHS. DesignA retrospective longitudinal study using a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes in outcomes at NHS trusts that opened surgical hubs with those that did not. SettingThe study was set in the English NHS, using administrative data from NHS acute trusts providing elective hip and knee replacements between April 2014 and September 2024. ParticipantsThe study included 76 NHS trusts. The treatment group consisted of 29 trusts that opened a surgical hub for trauma and orthopaedic surgery during the study period. The control group consisted of 47 trusts that did not. 48 trusts that performed fewer than 1,000 relevant procedures over the ten-year period or that reported data for fewer than 41 of the 42 quarters in the sample period were excluded. InterventionThe phased introduction of surgical hubs dedicated to elective procedures at 29 NHS trusts between Q1 2020 and Q3 2024. Main outcome measuresThe three main outcomes were, measured at the trust-quarter level: the total number of elective primary hip and knee replacements (surgical volume), the average length of stay in hospital, and the average waiting time from being added to the waiting list to hospital admission. ResultsThe opening of a surgical hub was associated with an increase of 43.75 hip and knee replacement surgeries per quarter (95% CI: 22.22 to 65.28), which represents a 19.1% increase compared to the pre-hub mean. Length of stay was reduced by 0.32 days (95% CI: - 0.48 to -0.16), a 7.8% reduction. There was no statistically significant effect on average waiting times (-14.96 days, 95% CI: -33.11 to 3.19). ConclusionsSurgical hubs appear to be effective at increasing the number of hip and knee replacements and reducing the time patients spend in hospital. However, in this study, they did not lead to a statistically significant reduction in waiting times overall.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 92%
- UK osteopathic practice in 2019: a retrospective analysis of practice data 92%
- Triaging and Referring In Adjacent General and Emergency Departments (the TRIAGE trial): a cluster randomised controlled trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Staffing levels and hospital mortality in England: a national panel study using routinely collected data 93%
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 92%
- Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the United Kingdom: a discrete choice experiment 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH) 92%
- Measurement Matters: Changing Penalty Calculations under the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) Cost Hospitals Millions 92%
- Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact on all-cause mortality of a case prediction and prevention intervention designed to reduce secondary care utilisation: findings from a randomised controlled trial 93%
- Population level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with covid-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design 92%
- Evaluating the impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in patients with covid-19 assessed in Accident and Emergency departments in England: a retrospective matched cohort study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A novel methodology to measure waiting times for community-based specialist care in a public healthcare system 90%
- Understanding the influence of leadership, organisation, and policy on delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 89%
- The paradox of the COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on patient demand in Japanese hospitals 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.