• None of 12 systems given extra funding to boost elective activity reached their pre-covid levels
  • The “accelerator” ICSs targeted delivering up to 120 per cent of 2019 levels from July
  • Recovery hit by summer covid wave
  • Performance in last quarter ranged from 97 per cent in Nottinghamshire to 86 per cent in Lancs and South Cumbria.

A dozen health systems which received £160m from NHS England this summer to accelerate recovery of elective activity have so far fallen short of their pre-covid levels, HSJ analysis reveals.

NHS England selected 12 integrated care systems earlier this year to be part of an “accelerator programme” to help ramp up planned procedures, after activity plummeted during the pandemic.

Systems within the programme have told HSJ they were initially asked to commit to delivering 120 per cent of their pre-covid activity levels from July 2021 onwards (ie a fifth more), although the precise expectations attached to the funding have never been revealed, and are understood to have varied across the different ICSs.

Several sources within the systems confirmed they had struggled even to return to pre-pandemic levels, however, and this is supported by HSJ analysis of activity data published by NHS Digital.

Analysis of the data for the three-month period to September shows all 12 systems in receipt of the extra funding delivered fewer inpatient and daycase procedures than they did in the same period in 2019.

Performance ranged from 97 per cent in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, to 86 per cent in Lancashire and South Cumbria.

Humber, Coast and Vale, which was not in the programme, was the only system to deliver more than its pre-pandemic activity.

Back in the spring, national elective procedure activity stood at around 85 per cent of pre-covid levels nationally, and this increased to around 96 per cent in June.

At this point it was hoped activity levels would continue rising over the summer, with the “accelerator” areas given funding to go even further.

However, performance has been hampered by a surge in covid patients. This began at the end of June and has seen the proportion of acute beds occupied by covid-positive patients hover around 4 per cent ever since, also putting pressure on critical care.

This has been coupled with high staff absence rates, the ongoing need for infection control measures, difficulties in discharging patients, and sustained emergency pressures.

The accelerator areas did perform marginally better than others over the three-month period, at an average of almost 90 per cent of pre-covid procedures, compared to the national average of around 87 per cent. On outpatient appointments, the accelerators delivered 96 per cent, against the national average of 95 per cent.

Elective treatment activity from July to September

bitmap

Accelerators highlighted in yellow. Table measures elective activity from July to September 2021, as a proportion of the same period in 2019. Elective procedurers includes ordinary admissions and day cases; outpatient appointments includes first and subsequent appointments; average covid occupancy is the proportion of acute beds occupied by covid-positive patients over the period.

Rob Findlay, an independent waiting list expert, said: “The data shows how difficult it is to increase activity in the current circumstances, and even in the accelerator sites activity has remained well below the high and sustained levels that will be needed to recover waiting times by the end of the decade.”

Systems leaders within the accelerator sites stressed the difficulties that rising covid rates had presented over the summer. They also said some of the investments they had made were aimed at delivering improvements over a longer term.

Barry Mulholland, a partner at MBI Healthcare Technologies, said: “I think this tells us two things. Firstly, despite central investment, particularly relating to accelerator programmes, trust’s elective activity remains hampered by their estate and workforce.

“Throwing more money at the issue will only get you so far. At present, where it gets us is not even back to pre-pandemic levels for the majority of ICS footprints. Secondly, with that in mind, the lead-in-times for solving estate and workforce issues will be longer than anticipated. The direct consequence of that is that the waiting list will continue to grow and patients will continue to wait.”

NHS Providers director of policy and strategy Miriam Deakin, said: “Trust leaders are only too well aware of the impact of delayed treatment for patients and carers and there has been progress in the work to recover services and address the care backlog.

“However, everyone would like to see this move faster… trusts are exploring every avenue to make headway and in the most recent published figures (for September) inpatient elective activity increased by nearly 9 per cent compared with the previous month.”

NHS England said in a statement: “While the combination of urgent and emergency pressures, continued covid-19 cases and workforce pressures has obviously had a knock on effect on elective activity over this period, accelerator sites are delivering higher levels of elective activity in comparison to non-accelerator sites.”

Systems which had higher covid occupancy over the three-month period performed slightly less well in terms of their elective activity. But several ICSs, including Humber. Coast and Vale, delivered relatively high activity levels despite having relatively high covid pressures.

Examples of how the money was spent

Lancashire and South Cumbria, the worst performing of the accelerator areas, said it received £15m from the programme, which had paid for additional bed capacity, improvements to pre- and post-operation patient assessments, and reducing the number of unnecessary admissions for treatments, along other measures. A spokesman added the programme had been extended to the end of November “in recognition of the challenging timescale to implementation and mounting operational challenges”.

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, which received £10m, said this was spent on additional cancer endoscopic ultrasound scopes to enable quicker diagnosis, equipment and set up costs for a community diagnostic eye hub, extra bed capacity, and extra community-based care to support post-operative patients.

Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire spent around £9m on capital schemes such as two modular theatres and new diagnostic and theatre equipment.

Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes said it spent £10m on various initiatives including increased GP access to consultant led advice and guidance, embedding new referral triage pathways and systems to ensure patients could be clinically prioritised.

Coventry and Warwickshire spent around £11m on several areas including additional theatre sessions, weekend and evening working within its independent sector hospitals, commissioning an external review to identify opportunities, and some capital schemes. 

North Central London did not disclose how much it had spent, but said its funding had been used to increase capacity for phlebotomy care, a project management office to “manage interface between primary and secondary care”, the implementation of patient-led follow up schemes, the creation of joint waiting lists, and other schemes.

Surrey Heartlands also did not disclose its spending on a community diagnostic hub, remote monitoring of chronic diseases in primary care, and various other schemes aimed at reducing demand. It said the measures are reducing the number of appointments for a number of specialties which means “it is difficult to directly compare datasets”.

The other ICSs were also approached for comment.