Biomedical subjects

Seán Boyle

Publications and source records attributed to Seán Boyle.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

The development of a Local Index of Need (LIN) and its use to explain variations in social services expenditure on mental health care in England.

Wide variations in deprivation exist across England and it is likely that these variations translate into differences in the need for mental health care. Social Services Departments in England account for a substantial proportion of mental health expenditure. It is important that the distribution of expenditure reflects mental health needs. This paper's aims are to (1) describe the development of a new indicator of mental health needs, (2) use the index to explain variations in social services expenditure on mental health, and (3) compare the index with other established measures of need. A principal components analysis of sociodemographic variables considered to be indicators of need was used to produce four distinct factors for 148 Local Authority areas in England. A weighted sum of these factors was used to produce a single index. (Weights were the proportion of variance explained by each factor.) The index was used in a regression model to explain variations in spending on mental health care and was compared with (1) a model containing the four individual factors, (2) the current method of allocating resources, (3) the index used to allocate resources to primary care trusts, (4) the Mental Illness Needs Index (MINI), (5) four indices of deprivation produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and (6) the average of the above four indices. The new index could explain 54% of variation, compared with 56% using the current method. The four-factor model could explain 66%, whilst the other models could explain between 37% and 20%. This new index has the advantage that it is not based on previous levels of utilisation or expenditure and yet still explains a comparable amount of variation as the current method. However, a disaggregated model containing individual factors may be preferable.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Do English NHS waiting time targets distort treatment priorities in orthopaedic surgery?

OBJECTIVES: To assess and quantify the impact of guarantees on maximum waiting times on clinical decisions to admit patients from waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: Before and after comparative study, analysing changes in waiting times distributions between 1997/8 and 2001/2 for waiting list and booked inpatients and day cases admitted for elective treatments in trauma and orthopaedics in English hospitals. RESULTS: The 2001/2 maximum waiting time target of 15 months did change the pattern of admissions for trauma and orthopaedic elective inpatients, with a net increase in admissions in that year, compared with 1997/8 (and over and above the 30,259 (7.6%) overall increase in all admissions) of patients who had waited around 15 months, of 9333. There was little indication that these additional admissions displaced shorter wait patients. In absolute and proportional terms, admissions increased for all waiting time categories except very short waiter-- one to two weeks (an absolute fall of 2901 and a relative fall of 6591), and those waiting 40--41 weeks. The latter fall was only 111 patients in absolute terms (or 577 relative to the expected increase), however. The former much larger reduction may be an indication of clinical distortions, but it is unclear why very short wait (presumably more urgent) patients should disproportionately suffer compared with longer wait (presumably less urgent) cases. In addition, there was little indication that more minor cases usurped more major cases: 57% of the increase consisted of knee and hip replacement procedures, for example. CONCLUSIONS: While the 2001/2 waiting times target demonstrably changed admission patterns (and was a major contribution to the reduction in long waits), the extent to which this represented significant and clinically relevant distortions is questionable given the lack of widely accepted admission criteria. However, as targets become progressively tougher, there is a need to monitor consultants' concerns more closely.

England↗

PubMed2003

Waiting times. Catch up, keep up.

Trusts vary greatly on their progress in achieving waiting-list targets, particularly for 2005. A study of trusts with a range of performances identified four key criteria: information use, managerial focus, capacity and long-term efficiency. Actions that help a trust 'catch up' rarely help them 'keep up; strategies may need to change once waiting lists have fallen markedly. Flexibility, forward planning and 'expecting the unexpected' are characteristics of successful trusts.

Efficiency, Organizational↗