Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Developing a generic business case for an advanced chronic liver disease support service
  1. Mark Wright1,
  2. Sarah Willmore1,
  3. Sumita Verma2,3,
  4. Anita Omasta-Martin4,
  5. Humraj Sahota1,
  6. Wendy Prentice5,
  7. Amelia Jane Stockley6,
  8. Fiona Finlay7,
  9. Julia Verne8,
  10. Ben Hudson9
  1. 1 Hepatology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
  2. 2 Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, East Sussex, UK
  3. 3 Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK
  4. 4 Palliative Care, University Hospital Southamptom, Southampton, UK
  5. 5 Department of Palliative Care Medicine, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
  6. 6 Supportive and Palliative Care, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK
  7. 7 Palliative Care, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus, Glasgow, UK
  8. 8 Public Health, United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care, London, UK
  9. 9 Hepatology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mark Wright, Hepatology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton SO166YD, UK; mark.wright{at}uhs.nhs.uk

Abstract

Introduction Liver disease deaths are rising, but specialist palliative care services for hepatology are limited. Expansion across the NHS is required.

Methods We surveyed clinicians, patients and carers to design an ‘ideal’ service. Using standard NHS tariffs, we calculated the cost of this service. In hospitals where specialist palliative care was available for liver disease, patient-level costs and bed utilisation in last year of life (LYOL) were compared between those seen by specialist palliative care before death and those not.

Results The ‘ideal’ service was described. Costs were calculated as whole time equivalent for a minimal service, which could be scaled up. From a hospital with an existing service, patients seen by specialist palliative care had associated costs of £14 728 in LYOL, compared with £18 558 for those dying without. Savings more than balanced the costs of introducing the service. Average bed days per patient in LYOL were reduced (19.4 vs 25.7) also intensive care unit bed days (1.1 vs 1.8). Despite this, time from first admission in LYOL to death was similar in both groups (6 months for the specialist palliative care group vs 5 for those not referred).

Conclusions We have produced a template business case for an ‘ideal’ advanced liver disease support service, which self-funds and saves many bed days. The model can be easily adapted for local use in other trusts. We describe the methodology for calculating patient-level costs and the required service size. We present a financially compelling argument to expand a service to meet a growing need.

  • cirrhosis
  • health economics
  • liver cirrhosis

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

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.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @marktheliverdoc

  • Contributors MW conceived the study and wrote the manuscript. MW is the guarrantor for the work. SW and HS extracted the data and wrote the business cases. BH, SV, JV, WP, FF, AJS established the questions for the service design and contributed to the manuscript.

  • Funding We received a small educational grant from NHSI to fund the work of an NHS graduate management trainee (SW) to obtain the patient level costing data and produce the business case.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.