Martin Bardsley: analysis of virtual wards

© Nuffield Trust 01 May 2014

Analysis of Virtual Wards: a multidisciplinary

form of case management that integrates social

and health care

Martin Bardsley

Director of Research

Nuffield Trust

BGS Meeting. Acute care of Older people

Manchester Conference Centre. April 14 2014

© Nuffield Trust 01 May 2014 © Nuffield Trust

Background

© Nuffield Trust

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) report

© Nuffield Trust

10-year trend in emergency admissions (46 million admits)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

20

01/0

2 Q

1

20

01/0

2 Q

2

20

01/0

2 Q

3

20

01/0

2 Q

4

20

02/0

3 Q

1

20

02/0

3 Q

2

20

02/0

3 Q

3

20

02/0

3 Q

4

20

03/0

4 Q

1

20

03/0

4 Q

2

20

03/0

4 Q

3

20

03/0

4 Q

4

20

04/0

5 Q

1

20

04/0

5 Q

2

20

04/0

5 Q

3

20

04/0

5 Q

4

20

05/0

6 Q

1

20

05/0

6 Q

2

20

05/0

6 Q

3

20

05/0

6 Q

4

20

06/0

7 Q

1

20

06/0

7 Q

2

20

06/0

7 Q

3

20

06/0

7 Q

4

20

07/0

8 Q

1

20

07/0

8 Q

2

20

07/0

8 Q

3

20

07/0

8 Q

4

20

08/0

9 Q

1

20

08/0

9 Q

2

20

08/0

9 Q

3

20

08/0

9 Q

4

20

09/1

0 Q

1

20

09/1

0 Q

2

20

09/1

0 Q

3

20

09/1

0 Q

4

20

10/1

1 Q

1

20

10/1

1 Q

2

20

10/1

1 Q

3

20

10/1

1 Q

4

Nu

mb

er

of

em

erg

en

cy a

dm

issio

ns

(millio

ns)

No ACS diagnosis ACS primary diagnosis ACS secondary diagnosis

+35% (40%)

+34%

© Nuffield Trust

Interventions to reduce avoidable admissions

Primary Care ED Depts Hospital Transition

Practice features Assess/obs wards Structured

Discharge

Transition care

management

Medication review GPs in A&E Medication

Review

Rehabilitation

Case

management

Senior Clinician

Review

Specialist Clinics Self management

and education

Telemedicine Coordination end

of life care

Hospital at home

Virtual Wards

From Sarah Purdy 2013

Rationale for the virtual ward

Need to respond to growing needs of people with chronic health problems.

Emergency admissions have been rising for some time – undesirable for

patients and costly in terms of acute hospital care. No one explanation for

rise in emergency admissions – part patients factors, part health

systems.

Aim to develop approaches that are preventive before crises emerge.

Needed to identify patients at risk of future admissions.

Needed a linked process for managing high risk patients in community

settings.

Not clear what works see Purdy et al (2012) Interventions to Reduce Unplanned Hospital Admission: A series of systematic reviews. Bristol University Final Report)

© Nuffield Trust

To prevent, we need to predict who will high costs in who in

the future

Predictive

models try to

identify

people here

Avera

ge n

um

ber

of

em

erg

ency b

ed d

ays …not the people

who are current

intensive users

© Nuffield Trust

Predictive modelling in the UK

Patterns in routine data identify high-

risk people next year.

Use pseudonymous, person-level

data.

Relies on exploiting existing

information:

+ve: systematic; not costly data

collections; fit into existing systems;

applied at population level

-ve: information collected may not be

predictive; data lags

© Nuffield Trust

Describing a model’s performance

A predictive risk

model tries to

sort it out

At the start of the year, no

one knows who’s who

© Nuffield Trust

Predictive modelling is only as effective as the intervention it

is used to trigger

Case Management

Intensive Disease Management

Less Intensive Disease Management

Wellness Programmes

Top 0.5%

0.5 – 5.0%

6 - 20%

21 –

100%

Need to link the risk strata to the treatment/management options

© Nuffield Trust

Virtual Wards = Predictive Model

+

Hospital-at-Home

V

i

r

t

u

a

l

W

a

r

d

A

V

i

r

t

u

a

l

W

a

r

d

B

Virtual Ward B Community Matron

Nursing complement

Health Visitor

Ward Clerk

Pharmacist

Social Worker

Physiotherapist

Occupational Therapist

Mental Health Link

Voluntary Sector Link

Virtual Ward A Community Matron

Nursing complement

Health Visitor

Ward Clerk

Pharmacist

Social Worker

Physiotherapist

Occupational Therapist

Mental Health Link

Voluntary Sector Link

Specialist Staff

•Specialist nurses

•Asthma

•Continence

•Heart Failure

•Palliative care team

•Alcohol service

•Dietician

GP Practice 1

GP Practice 2

GP Practice 3

GP Practice 5

GP Practice 4

GP Practice 6

GP Practice 7

GP Practice 8

Original Croydon

Model for Virtual

Wards

© Nuffield Trust

Lewis* described the following model of care known as 'virtual wards‘

(1 of 2)

• Each virtual ward is linked to a specific group of GP practices (so pop

c.30,000)

• A patient is offered "admission" to a virtual ward if a risk prediction tool

identifies him or her as being at high risk of a future emergency hospital

admission.

• Patients remain in the community and receive multidisciplinary in person at the

patient's home, by telephone and/or at a local clinic.

• Each virtual ward has a capacity for 100 patients, i.e. 100 “virtual beds” per

virtual ward. These are subdivided into five "daily" beds, 35 "weekly" beds and

60 "monthly" beds, reflecting the frequency with which different patients are

reviewed on a ward round.

• Virtual ward staff can move patients between different “beds" as the patients'

needs change.

*Lewis GH. Case study: virtual wards at Croydon Primary Care Trust. London: King’s Fund; 2006. Available from:

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/search_clicks.rm?id=6746&destinationtype=2&instanceid=349684

© Nuffield Trust

Lewis* described the following model of care known as 'virtual wards‘

(2 of 2)

• Virtual ward staff discuss patients on office-based "ward rounds", participating

either in person or by telephone.

• Certain specialist staff (e.g. tissue viability nurse) may cover several virtual

wards.

• The virtual ward staff share a common medical record.

• Systems to alert local hospitals, emergency departments and out-of-hours

providers that a patient is on a virtual ward.

• When a patient has been assessed by all relevant virtual ward staff, and has

been cared for uneventfully for several months in the ‘monthly review’ section of

the ward, then the ward staff may feel that the patient is ready to be discharged

back to the care of the GP practice.

*Lewis GH. Case study: virtual wards at Croydon Primary Care Trust. London: King’s Fund; 2006. Available from:

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/search_clicks.rm?id=6746&destinationtype=2&instanceid=349684

© Nuffield Trust

Adaptations and evaluations

Site Feature Evaluation

Croydon Nurse-led NIHR funded study

Wandsworth VWGPs NIHR funded study

Devon Practice-based NIHR funded study

New York Homeless RCT

Toronto Discharge Virtual Ward RCT

North Somerset Clinical referrals Local study

Plus increasing number of different models in UK and abroad See also Chenore T, Pereira Gray DJ, Forrer J, Wright C., Evans PH, Emergency hospital admissions for the

elderly: insights from the Devon Predictive Model J Public Health (2013)

© Nuffield Trust

Outline of three schemes

Croydon Devon Wandsworth

Date first virtual ward

opened

May 2006 October 2008 March 2009

Number of virtual

wards under study

2 then 8 1 4

Funding Croydon PCT NHS Devon and Devon County

Council Wandsworth PCT and

Wandsworth Council

Model Nursing led GP practice led GP led

Full-time staff Community matrons and ward

clerks Community matron and ward clerk Community matron, virtual ward

GP, and ward clerk

Number of part-time

staff (wider

multidisciplinary team)

Initial “pilot” virtual wards

project: pharmacist,

physiotherapist, occupational

therapist, district nurses, health

visitor for older people,

representative of Croydon

Voluntary Action

After the initial pilot phase:

none

Social workers, community

psychiatric nurse (CPN), CPN for

older people, staff grade elderly

care doctor, physiotherapist,

occupational therapist, voluntary

sector representative, district

nurses, GP, complex care team

manager (joint health & social care

appointment)

Social worker, district nurse,

physical therapist, occupational

therapist, pharmacist, drug &

alcohol therapist.


Evaluation methods

© Nuffield Trust

Evaluation Methods

Three pilots sites with different models of virtual ward

Retrospective analysis of existing projects

Track cohort of specific patients to look at service use over time

Exploit existing data through secure data linkage

Compare change to matched control group (matched on multiple variable using propensity and prognostic score)

Costing service activity and interventions

© Nuffield Trust From: Predictive Models for Health and Social Care: A Feasibility Study

Information flows

© Nuffield Trust

Health and social care timeline – an individual’s history

© Nuffield Trust

Matching health diagnoses categories in intervention and

control groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Control Intervention

© Nuffield Trust

Example: Marie Curie Home Nursing Service.

Comparing hospital admissions for retrospectively matched controls


Findings

© Nuffield Trust

Lengths of stay on the virtual wards

© Nuffield Trust

Costs of service use in the six months before starting on the

virtual ward according to risk band

-£1,000

£0

£1,000

£2,000

£3,000

£4,000

£5,000

£6,000

£7,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Co

st P

er

pat

ien

t

Risk Strata

A&E Community Elective

Emergency GP Out Patients

Social Care

© Nuffield Trust

Virtual ward patients

The virtual ward patients in one site had

• a mean combined model score of 0.63 compared with score of 0.06 for the rest of the

population.

• a higher rate of emergency hospital admissions (2.64 per patient compared with 0.06).

• more general practice surgery visits (42.99 visits compared with 5.55).

• more contact with community nurses (68.6 per cent of virtual ward patients had been in

contact with community nurses in the year before receiving the intervention compared

with 1.0 per cent for the rest of the population).

• more chronic health problems 2.48 vs 0.07 conditions for the rest of the population.

• more social care services eg 19.3 per cent of virtual ward patients had received home

care at some point in the previous twelve months, compared with 0.5 per cent for the

rest of the population.

© Nuffield Trust

Changes in observed costs

Individual service use costs on the six months before and after starting the intervention (n=989)

% with a cost

(pre or post)

Total Cost

Pre(£000s)

Avg Cost pp

pre(£) % Total (pre)

Avg Cost pp

Post (£)

% total Cost

Posts

GP 92% 135 501 8.0% 538 9.0%

Community 62% 396 401 6.4% 837 14.0%

A&E 60% 748 136 2.2% 100 1.7%

Elective 26% 2,407 757 12.0% 504 8.4%

Emergency 55% 496 2,433 38.8% 1,867 31.1%

Out Patients 78% 555 561 8.9% 437 7.3%

Social Care 32% 1,473 1,489 23.7% 1,714 28.6%

Total 6,210 6,279 100.0% 5,996 100.0%

© Nuffield Trust

Matching process to create ‘controls’

Intervention

patients (n=1,231)

Potential controls

(n=2,083,830)

Matched controls

(n=1,231)

Mean age in years (SD) 71.23 (16.86) 39.83 (23.32) 71.61 (17.45)

Female 54.8 55.1 55.6

Mean socioeconomic score (SD) *

24.06 (10.88) 24.58 (11.91) 25.51 (10.90)

Mean number of chronic conditions (SD)

2.70 (1.66) 0.21 (0.66) 2.46 (1.58)

Mean predictive risk (SD)

0.60 (0.25) 0.08 (0.09) 0.57 (0.24)

Angina 23.2 1.5 21.4

Asthma 20.6 2.8 19.6

Cancer 15.5 2.7 12.5

Cerebrovascular disease

19.8 1.1 19.0

Congestive heart failure

22.7 0.8 17.2

COPD 23.2 0.9 18.5

Diabetes 29.7 2.8 28.5

History of falls 24.5 2.2 25.9

History of injury 44.6 6.9 45.7

Matching based on:

Age, sex, ethnicity, IMD

Recorded diagnoses

Prior use

Predictive risk score

© Nuffield Trust

Observations on impact on care use

Sample dominated by one site

Difficulties in matching to patients with complex health problems (had to use national hospital based models)

No evidence of reductions in emergency admissions at six months

Indications of possible reductions in OP and elective care

© Nuffield Trust

Reality of implementation

In largest site the model ‘changed’

• from multidisciplinary case management to standard service delivered by a

community matron supported by an administrative assistant

• Predictive model not used consistently throughout

• organisational commitment and investment in preventive care for high risk patients

but local GPs seemed less visible

• Long lengths of stay linked with incentives to have 500 patients on virtual wards.

Large differences between sites in costs of virtual wards itself

Two sites still in early stages - and have subsequently developed

© Nuffield Trust

Cautions in evaluation……

1. Recognise that planning and implementing large scale service

changes take time

2. Define the service intervention clearly – and be clear when the model

is changed

3. If you want to demonstrate statistically significant change, size and

time matter

4. Hospital use and costs are not the only impact measures

5. Carefully consider the best models for evaluation –

prospective/retrospective; formative/summative; quant./qualitative

© Nuffield Trust

General observations

There were different 'forms' of virtual ward in this study and we suspect an even wider

number of variants in other settings.

Our analyses have shown how patients being cared for on virtual wards included some

people with serious complex illnesses that have important health service implications.

Virtual wards are part of a generic approach to long term care which may be justified in

other terms, for example as ways to improve the quality of communication between

community health staff, the continuity of care, patient experience or safety. No simple

solutions we can take off the shelf

Though the evidence was not conclusive, the differential levels of service use in high risk

patients suggested that these would provide more fertile ground for interventions aimed at

reducing hospital use.

© Nuffield Trust

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the National Institute for Health Research

(NIHR) Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme. Project

number 09/1816/1021.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR SDO programme or the

Department of Health.

We are grateful to the support and guidance of staff in our three study

sites, and in particular our site representatives:

• Paul Lovell (Devon)

• David Osborne (Croydon)

• Seth Rankin (Wandsworth)

© Nuffield Trust 01 May 2014

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk

Sign-up for our newsletter www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/newsletter/login.aspx

Follow us on Twitter (http://twitter.com/NuffieldTrust)

© Nuffield Trust

[email protected]

Martin Bardsley: analysis of virtual wards

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Martin Bardsley: analysis of virtual wards