Can proactive support prevent unscheduled care? A controlled observational retrospective cohort study in cancer patients in Scotland

TL;DR

A study in Scotland found that cancer patients using proactive support services actually used more unscheduled healthcare services compared to similar patients not using the service.

Contribution

This study provides new evidence on the real-world impact of proactive cancer care services on unscheduled healthcare utilization.

Findings

ICJ users had significantly higher NHS24 calls, A&E visits, and hospital admissions compared to control groups.

ICJ users had longer hospital stays and more complex care pathways than matched cancer patients.

The findings suggest ICJ users may be a group more likely to use unscheduled care in the future.

Abstract

Preventative spend is a global health and social care strategy. Improving Cancer Journeys (ICJ) is a proactive, holistic, multidisciplinary project consistent with this agenda, currently being rolled out across Scotland and parts of UK. ICJ helps people with cancer access whatever support they need to mitigate their most pressing concerns. This study hypothesised that ICJ service users should subsequently use less unscheduled care than matched cohorts not using ICJ.

Retrospective observational cohort study using linked national datasets. N = 1,214 ICJ users in Glasgow were matched for age, sex, deprivation, cancer type, stage, and diagnosis year to two control groups: 1. Cancer patients from Glasgow before ICJ (pre-2014), 2. Cancer patients from rest of Scotland during study period (2014–2018). Cancer registrations were linked for 12-month baseline and study periods to: NHS24 calls, A&E admissions, inpatient hospital admissions, unscheduled care, number & cost of psychotropic prescriptions. Per-person mean service uses were compared between groups.

There was a significant increase in NHS24 calls in the ICJ group (0.36 per person vs. -0.03 or 0.35), more and longer A&E attendances in ICJ (0.37 per person vs. 0.19 or 0.26; 2.19 h per person vs. 0.81–0.92 h), more and longer hospital admissions in ICJ (4.25 vs. 2.59 or 2.53; 12.05 days vs. 8.37 or 8.64), more care pathways involving more steps in ICJ (0.77 spells vs. 0.39 or 0.57; 1.88 steps vs. 1.56 or 1.21), more psychotropic drug prescriptions and higher costs in ICJ (1.88 prescription vs. 1.56 or 1.21; £9.51 vs. £9.57 or £6.95) in comparison to both control groups.

ICJ users sourced significantly more unscheduled care than matched cohorts. These findings were consistent with much of the comparable literature examining the impact of non-health interventions on subsequent health spend. They also add to the growing evidence showing that ICJ reached its intended target, those with the greatest need. Together these findings raise the possibility that those choosing to use ICJ may also be self-identifying as a cohort of people more likely to use unscheduled care in future. This needs to be tested prospectively, because this understanding would be very helpful for health and social care planners in all countries where proactive holistic services exist.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-10923-2.

Figures