Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the ‘current’ weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a ‘newly developed’ service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The ‘no weekend allied health service’ condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [−0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference −1.6 days [−2.0 to −1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [−0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: −0.01 [−0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [−0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (−0.03 [−0.05 to −0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796

Health services that operate 7 days per week are under pressure to show the increased cost of providing weekend services can be measured in improved patient outcomes. The evidence for weekend allied health services in acute medical and surgical wards is weak and there is wide variation between the services offered at different hospitals. This qualitative study was undertaken during a multi-site stepped wedge randomised controlled trial involving twelve acute medical and surgical wards from two Australian hospitals, in which weekend allied health services were removed before being reinstated with a stakeholder driven model. In-depth interviews were conducted with twenty-two staff responsible for managing weekend services at the involved hospitals. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of providing a weekend allied health service. Managers perceive the services improve patient flow and quality of care and reduce adverse incidents, such as falls and intensive care admissions. They also highlighted the challenges involved in planning, staffing and managing these services and the uncertainties about how to provide it most effectively. Rising healthcare costs provide opportunity for public and professional debate about the most effective way of providing weekend allied health care services, particularly when health services provide limited other weekend services. Some managers perceived weekend allied health services to improve patient quality of care, but without studies which show these services on acute medical and surgical wards clearly change patient outcomes or provide health economic gains, these resources may need to be redirected. The resources may be better spent in areas with clear evidence to show the addition of weekend allied health services improves patient outcomes, such as on acute assess units and rehabilitation wards.

Background: Health care services must deliver high-quality, evidence-based care that represents sound value. Disinvestment is the process of withdrawing resources from any existing health care practices that deliver low gain for their cost and reallocating these toward practices that are more effective, efficient, and cost-effective, thus benefiting patients and the community. Purpose: This is the first review to examine the responses of health care staff to disinvestment and investigate the factors that increase the likelihood of these staff accepting disinvestment or reallocation of resources from the health services they provide. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) framework. A critical appraisal process of the quality of the included studies was performed by two authors. We undertook a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data to develop an overarching narrative. Results: Twelve studies were identified for synthesis and all found that the disinvestment process was challenging and controversial for those health care staff involved. Negative staff reactions to disinvestment identified were anxiety, disempowerment, distrust, and feelings of being dismissed and disrespected. Engagement with disinvestment was observed when staff were invited to participate in a process they considered transparent and in the best interests of the community. Practice Recommendations: Health care staff have a strong professional identity associated with autonomy in their decision making in the provision of health care services. Disinvestment from a service that health care staff can usually choose to provide threatens this identity. Engaging clinical champions to lead change, using rigorous patient outcome data, and transparent decision-making processes may assist health care staff to embrace a new identity as innovators and accept disinvestment in low-value health care.

Background: Disinvestment from inefficient health services may be a potential solution to rising healthcare costs, but there has been poor uptake of disinvestment recommendations. This Australian study aims to understand how health professionals react when confronted with a plan to disinvest from a health service they previously provided to their patients. Methods: This qualitative study took place prior to the disinvestment phase of a trial which removed weekend allied health services from acute hospital wards, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the service. Observations and focus groups were used to collect data from 156 participants which was analysed thematically. Results: Initial reactions to the disinvestment were almost universally negative, with staff extremely concerned about the impact on the safety and quality of patient care and planning ways to circumvent the trial. Removal of existing services was perceived as a loss and created a direct threat to some clinicians’ professional identity. With time, discussion, and understanding of the project’s context, some staff moved towards acceptance and perceived the trial as an opportunity, particularly given the service was to be reinstated after the disinvestment. Conclusion: Clinicians and health service managers are protective of the services they deliver and can create barriers to disinvestment. Even when services are removed to ascertain their value, health professionals may continue to provide services to their patients. Measuring the impact of the disinvestment may assist staff to accept the removal of a service.

Purpose: Student‐led clinics generate a range of benefits to multiple stakeholder groups. Students receive important educational opportunities to advance in their training. Patients with limited access to care may access effective care or a higher amount of effective care and so reduce burden on the health care system. The financial viability of student‐led clinics run by universities is uncertain, and establishing this is complicated by the range of stakeholder costs and benefits that may be involved. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence related to the costs and benefits of student‐led clinics and report the methods that have been used to measure these costs and benefits. Method: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE All, PsychInfo, CINAHL, A+ Education (Informit), ERIC (ProQuest) and ProQuest Education databases for studies that reported the costs and/or economic benefits of student‐led clinics from inception through August 2023. Studies were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted including study characteristics, student‐led clinic description and economic outcomes. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity of studies. Results: Of 349 potentially eligible studies, 24 were included. Nine studies (38%) used an outcome description‐monetised approach; four used partial economic evaluation (17%); four employed cost description (17%); two used cost approximation (8%); two used cost analyses (8%); and one was a full economic analysis (4%). Studies examined costs or benefits, from the perspective of a range of stakeholders, but few examined both. Only six studies (25%) had established the clinical effectiveness of their service. Student clinics generate costs for universities in supplying supervision, capital and consumables. Benefits are shared by patients, students, universities and the broader health system, however, economic evaluations to date have largely ignored or not monetised/valued these benefits. Conclusions: Student‐led clinics involve many different stakeholders, each of whom may incur costs and reap benefits. This complicates how we can go about trying to establish the economic efficiency and viability of student‐led clinics. Measurement of both costs and benefits is needed to understand the efficiency of student‐led clinics in comparison to alternatives. Without the full picture, decision‐makers may make decisions that are ill‐informed and lead to a loss of benefit for society.