You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 8, Issue 2
  • How effective and cost-effective are innovative combinatorial technologies and practices for supporting older people with long-term conditions to remain well in the community? An evaluation protocol for an NHS Test Bed in North West England

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Health services research
Protocol
How effective and cost-effective are innovative combinatorial technologies and practices for supporting older people with long-term conditions to remain well in the community? An evaluation protocol for an NHS Test Bed in North West England
  1. Sandra Varey1,
  2. Alejandra Hernández1,
  3. Tom M Palmer2,
  4. Céu Mateus3,
  5. Joann Wilkinson1,
  6. Mandy Dixon4,
  7. Christine Milligan1
  1. 1 Centre for Ageing Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  2. 2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  3. 3 Health Economics, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  4. 4 Lancaster Health Hub, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Christine Milligan; c.milligan{at}lancaster.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction The Lancashire and Cumbria Innovation Alliance (LCIA) Test Bed is a partnership between the National Health Service in England, industry (led by Philips) and Lancaster University. Through the implementation of a combination of innovative health technologies and practices, it aims to determine the most effective and cost-effective ways of supporting frail older people with long-term conditions to remain well in the community. Among the Test Bed’s objectives are to improve patient activation and the ability of older people to self-care at home, reduce healthcare system utilisation, and deliver increased workforce productivity.

Methods and analysis Patients aged 55 years and over are recruited to four cohorts defined by their risk of hospital admission, with long-term conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, diabetes and heart failure. The programme is determined on an individual basis, with a range of technologies available. The evaluation is adopting a two-phase approach: phase 1 includes a bespoke patient survey and a mass matched control analysis; and phase 2 is using observational interviews with patients, and weekly diaries, action learning meetings and focus groups with members of staff and other key stakeholders. Phase 1 data analysis consists of a statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme. A health economic analysis of its costs and associated cost changes will be undertaken. Phase 2 data will be analysed thematically with the aid of Atlas.ti qualitative software. The evaluation is located within a logic model framework, to consider the processes, management and participation that may have implications for the Test Bed’s success.

Ethics and dissemination The LCIA Test Bed evaluation has received ethical approval from the Health Research Authority and Lancaster University’s Faculty of Health and Medicine Research Ethics Committee. A range of dissemination methods are adopted, including deliberative panels to validate findings and develop outcomes for policy and practice.

  • health technologies
  • older people
  • long-term conditions
  • patient activation
  • self-care

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017268

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SV is the principal author and wrote the majority of the manuscript. AH, TMP, CMa, JW, MD and CMi are coauthors, and each contributed to the editing and revision of the manuscript through several iterations. CMi is the principal investigator for the evaluation and is the corresponding author.

    • Funding This work is supported by NHS England.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval The Health Research Authority (IRAS Project ID: 208395) and the Lancaster University Faculty of Health Research Ethics Committee (reference: FHMREC16025).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.