1 / 26

What ’ s hot and what ’ s not – commissioning and delivering stop smoking services in England

What ’ s hot and what ’ s not – commissioning and delivering stop smoking services in England. Melanie McIlvar, Director NCSCT UKNSCC, Friday 13 th June 2014. Presentation overview. Commissioning of services – key findings from national commissioner survey

ruby
Download Presentation

What ’ s hot and what ’ s not – commissioning and delivering stop smoking services in England

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What’s hot and what’s not – commissioning and delivering stop smoking services in England Melanie McIlvar, Director NCSCT UKNSCC, Friday 13th June 2014

  2. Presentation overview • Commissioning of services – key findings from national commissioner survey • Delivery of services – key findings from provider reviews • What service users have told us

  3. Acknowledgements • Public Health England • Tobacco control commissioners who responded to the survey • Stop smoking service providers involved in the reviews • Jo Locker, PHE • Andy McEwen, NCSCT • Jennifer Potts, NCSCT

  4. Commissioning

  5. Commissioning of services National survey of tobacco control commissioners undertaken in early 2014 to: • Establish the nature of commissioning arrangements in place for stop smoking services at present • Investigate the range of different commissioning models in place • Identify the nature of targets set (2013/14), intentions for 2014/15 targets and targets for priority groups • Gain insight into payments awarded to providers

  6. Commissioning of services • Survey sent to every local area (n=152) via a Survey Monkey link • Open between 20th January – 26th February 2014 • Final response rate = 49% (n=74)

  7. Survey responses by region

  8. Current commissioning Every responding area reported commissioning services for 2013/14 • 30% (n=22) through block contracts • 31% (n=23) multiple providers individually commissioned with specific targets • 14% (n=10) large number of community providers directly commissioned with no specific target

  9. Commissioning intentions The vast majority (85%, n=56) intended to go through a service commissioning process for 2014/15 • Same provider and model = 51% (n=35) • Same model but retendering providers = 7% (n=5) • Different commissioning arrangements = 24% (n=16) Reasons for not re-commissioning in 2014/15: • Existing contract until 2015/16 • Integration with ‘lifestyle services’

  10. Outcome measures

  11. Outcome measures

  12. Priority groups Outcomes for priority groups reported by: • 81% (n=59) 2013/14 • 82% (n=54) 2014/15 (intended)

  13. Payment schedules

  14. Medication provision 1st line varenicline and combination NRT Combination NRT as standard

  15. Potential developments • Limiting access 11% (n=8) • Harm reduction activities 35% (n=25) Interventions for users of unlicensed nicotine containing products • 24% (n=17) already commissioned services to provide behavioural support • 70% (n=50) do not currently commission support • 6% (n=4) didn’t know

  16. Delivery of services – key findings from provider reviews The “hot” and the “not”

  17. NCSCT Service Provider Review Patient data assessment Involves accessing patient data to verify four-week quit rates and measure customer satisfaction via a short telephone interview. Provider assessment Involves a self-completion questionnaire to be filled out by the provider and signed off at manager level. Report (review outcome) Issued to the provider / commissioner

  18. NCSCT Service Provider Review

  19. Delivery of services

  20. Delivery of services Access to medications Support based on a protocol CO testing Quit rate Likely to be very satisfied with the service Weekly sessions

  21. Client satisfaction “My advisor was incredibly helpful and supportive” “Lovely people…a great service” “Very impressed with the service” “Very happy, great support, really liked seeing the advisor each week” “It was an excellent service ... all the advisors were very helpful” “Very disappointed as was ready to quit but heard nothing after being referred” “The guy I saw, he left – and then the service didn’t get back to me”

  22. Data verification • 943 clients spoken to • 71.6% contacts verified • Verification rate ranged from 94% - 29%

  23. Reasons for non-verification

  24. Summary • Remains variable and change continues! • Stop smoking services, four-week quit outcomes and priority groups are still a focus • Services continue to be well regarded by their users • Inconsistency in service delivery • Good opportunity to revise what the local minimum standards for service delivery are (commissioners) • Providers need to consider how they can meet minimum standards • Data accuracy requires on-going assessment • Importance of independent review

  25. melanie.mcilvar@ncsct.co.uk www.ncsct.co.uk

More Related