Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of cancer treatment, affecting many patients. Cannabinoid agonists, such as nabilone and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive component of Cannabis sativa L., have shown efficacy as antiemetics. Here, we report the case of Michael Roberts (MR), who we believe is the first British patient reimbursed by the National Health Service (NHS) England for the cost of medicinal cannabis flowers to manage CINV. Medical data were obtained from NHS records and individual funding request (IFR) forms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected using validated questionnaires as part of the standard of care at the specialized private clinics where the prescription of medicinal cannabis was initiated. The patient presented with rectosigmoid adenocarcinoma with lung metastases. He received FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) chemotherapy and underwent an emergency Hartmann\'s procedure with subsequent second-line FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy and lung ablation. MR reported severe nausea and vomiting associated with the initial FOLFIRI treatment. Antiemetics metoclopramide and aprepitant demonstrated moderated efficacy. Antiemetics ondansetron, levomepromazine, and nabilone were associated with intolerable side effects. Inhalation of THC-predominant cannabis flowers in association with standard medication improved CINV, anxiety, sleep quality, appetite, overall mood, and quality of life. Our results add to the available evidence suggesting that medicinal cannabis flowers may offer valuable support in cancer palliative care integrated with standard-of-care oncology treatment. The successful individual funding request in this case demonstrates a pathway for other patients to gain access to these treatments, advocating for broader awareness and integration of cannabis-based medicinal products in national healthcare services.

BACKGROUND: Few accounts of healthcare corporatisation examine the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. New Politics of the Welfare State (NPWS) theories recognise the relevance of crises but give more attention to programmatic than systemic (structural) retrenchment, and little to healthcare corporatisation.
OBJECTIVE: To examine what changes the 2008 financial crisis produced in the pattern of healthcare corporatisation, and the implications for NPWS theories.
METHODS: Using administrative data from the English NHS during 1995-2019 we formulated a multi-dimensional index of corporatisation, tested its validity, and used it to analyse longitudinally how the financial crisis affected the balance between the responsibilization of management and re-commodification (introduction of market-like practices) in provider corporatisation.
RESULTS: The financial crisis influenced NHS corporatisation through the fiscal austerity with which governments responded. The re-commodification of NHS providers stalled but not the responsibilization of NHS managers.
CONCLUSIONS: The corporatisation of NHS providers faltered after the financial crisis. These findings corroborate parts of NPWS theory but also reveal scope for further elaborating its accounts of systemic retrenchment in health systems.

The UK National Health Service (NHS) employs a group of 14 separate allied health professions. Prosthetics and orthotics are the smallest of these professions. Although small, orthotics is integral to many clinical care pathways and has shown to provide an essential impact on a range of clinical conditions in the health service priority lists. Previous reports acknowledged the lack of data on the UK prosthetic and orthotic workforce, appointment outcomes and cost and the service users accessing such services and thus the challenges that it poses for effective service delivery. There is still a paucity of relevant data or initiatives to support the service provision. The work within this paper has taken the first step to address this gap, presenting a summary of the information relating to appointments and costs, and provides a discussion on the implications of variations across the NHS orthotic services within England in terms of spend, staffing and skill mix for orthotic services and service users and the need for further data on service users and the UK prosthetic and orthotic workforce.

OBJECTIVE: Day-case arthroplasty is gaining popularity in Europe. We report outcomes from the first 12 months following implementation of a day-case pathway for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) in an NHS hospital.
METHODS: A total of 47 total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 24 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) patients were selected for the day-case arthroplasty pathway, based on preoperative fitness and agreement to participate. Data were likewise collected for a matched control group (n = 58) who followed the standard pathway three months prior to the implementation of the day-case pathway. We report same-day discharge (SDD) success, reasons for delayed discharge, and patient-reported outcomes. Overall length of stay (LOS) for all lower limb arthroplasty was recorded to determine the wider impact of implementing a day-case pathway.
RESULTS: Patients on the day-case pathway achieved SDD in 47% (22/47) of THAs and 67% (16/24) of UKAs. The most common reasons for failed SDD were nausea, hypotension, and pain, which were strongly associated with the use of fentanyl in the spinal anaesthetic. Complications and patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Following the introduction of the day-case pathway, the mean LOS reduced significantly by 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5 days respectively in THA, UKA, and total knee arthroplasty cases (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Day-case pathways are feasible in an NHS set-up with only small changes required. We do not recommend fentanyl in the spinal anaesthetic for day-case patients. An important benefit seen in our unit is the so-called \'day-case effect\', with a significant reduction in mean LOS seen across all lower limb arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):900-908.

This paper provides a series of reflections on making the case to senior leaders for the introduction of clinical ethics support services within a UK hospital Trust at a time when clinical ethics committees are dwindling in the UK. The paper provides key considerations for those building a (business) case for clinical ethics support within hospitals by drawing upon published academic literature, and key reports from governmental and professional bodies. We also include extracts from documents relating to, and annual reports of, existing clinical ethics support within UK hospitals, as well as extracts from our own proposal submitted to the Trust Board. We aim for this paper to support other ethicists and/or health care staff contemplating introducing clinical ethics support into hospitals, to facilitate the process of making the case for clinical ethics support, and to contribute to the key debates in the literature around clinical ethics support. We conclude that there is a real need for investment in clinical ethics in the UK in order to build the evidence base required to support the wider introduction of clinical ethics support into UK hospitals. Furthermore, our perceptions of the purpose of, and perceived needs met through, clinical ethics support needs to shift to one of hospitals investing in their staff. Finally, we raise concerns over the optional nature of clinical ethics support available to practitioners within UK hospitals.

The development and implementation of innovation by healthcare providers is understood as a multi-determinant and multi-level process. Theories at different analytical levels (i.e. micro and organisational) are needed to capture the processes that influence innovation by providers. This article combines a micro theory of innovation, actor-network theory, with organisational level processes using the \'resource based view of the firm\'. It examines the influence of, and interplay between, innovation-seeking teams (micro) and underlying organisational capabilities (meso) during innovation processes. We used ethnographic methods to study service innovations in relation to ophthalmology services run by a specialist English NHS Trust at multiple locations. Operational research techniques were used to support the ethnographic methods by mapping the care process in the existing and redesigned clinics. Deficiencies in organisational capabilities for supporting innovation were identified, including manager-clinician relations and organisation-wide resources. The article concludes that actor-network theory can be combined with the resource-based view to highlight the influence of organisational capabilities on the management of innovation. Equally, actor-network theory helps to address the lack of theory in the resource-based view on the micro practices of implementing change.

Regenerative medicine is a site for opposing forces of gatekeeping and innovation. This applies both to regulation of market entry and to clinical adoption. Key gateways include the EU\'s Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation, technology assessment body NICE and commissioning/service contractor National Health Service England. The paper maps recent gatekeeping flexibilities, describing the range of gateways to market and healthcare adoption seen as alternatives to mainstream routes. The initiatives range from exemptions in pharmaceutical and ATMP regulations, through \'adaptive pathways\' and \'risk-based\' approaches, to special designation for promising innovation, value-based assessment and commissioner developments. Future developments are considered in the UK\'s \'accelerated access review\'. Caution is urged in assessing the impact of these gateway flexibilities and their market and public health implications.

Difficulties in setting healthcare priorities are encountered throughout the world. There is no agreement on the most appropriate principles or methods for healthcare rationing although there is some consensus that it should be undertaken as systematically and accountably as possible. Although some steps towards achieving accountability have been made at the macro and meso level, at the consultation level rationing remains implicit and poorly understood. Using morbid obesity surgery as a case study, we observed a series of UK National Health Service consultations where rationing was ongoing and conducted in-depth interviews with doctors and patients (2011-2014). A longitudinal approach was taken to research and in total 22 consultations were observed and 78 interviews were undertaken. Sampling was undertaken purposively and theoretically and analyses were undertaken thematically. Clinicians needed to prioritise 55 patients from 450 eligible referrals, but disagreed over the extent to which clinical and financial factors were the driving force behind decision-making. The most prominent rationing technique observed in consultations was rationing by selection, but examples of rationing by delay, by deterrence, and by deflection were also commonplace. Although all clinicians sought to avoid rationing by denial, only six of the 22 patients recruited to the research were known to have been treated at the end of the three-year period. Most clinicians sought to manage rationing implicitly, and only one explained the link between decision-making criteria and financial constraints on care availability. Although existing frameworks for categorising NHS rationing techniques were useful in identifying implicit strategies, in practice these techniques over-lapped substantially and we have proposed a simpler framework for analysing NHS rationing decisions at the consultation level, which includes just three categories - rationing by exclusion, rationing by deterrence, and rationing by delay.

The NHS is the most revered organisation in Britain: \'the proudest achievement of our modern society\'. It is certainly the largest, although since its inception in 1948 it has operated in a government-funded environment of restricted resources. Nevertheless, it has also benefitted from a generally effective model of intervention centred on a hospital care system integrating specialist and emergency care and a primary care system which functions as both a source of treatment and a gatekeeper to specialist care. New circumstances, including environmentally-generated risk and a shifting disease reality, challenges the adequacy of this model. This paper argues that these new circumstances, some of which have seen a legislative response by government, mean that the NHS has to apply sustainable development thinking programmatically throughout its management and operations. It is also argued that the organisation needs to refocus towards prevention particularly in order to stem the rising tide of non-communicable disease. This paper sets out the thinking and actions of the Sustainable Development Unit, which has the task of developing and implanting sustainability concepts in the NHS. It is argued that the cause of sustainable development calls for a mix of cultural and technological shifts, new incentives and a rolling programme of innovative change. Some examples of success are presented.

This paper reports from an ethnographic study of hospital planning in England undertaken between 2006 and 2009. We explored how a policy to centralise hospital services was espoused in national policy documents, how this shifted over time and how it was translated in practice. We found that policy texts defined hospital planning as a clinical issue and framed decisions to close hospitals or hospital departments as based on the evidence and necessary to ensure safety. We interpreted this framing as a rhetorical strategy for implementing organisational change in the context of community resistance to service closure and a concomitant policy emphasising the importance of public and patient involvement in planning. Although the persuasive power of the framing was limited, a more insidious form of power was identified in the way the framing disguised the political nature of the issue by defining it as a clinical problem. We conclude by discussing how the clinical rationale constrains public participation in decisions about the delivery and organisation of healthcare and restricts the extent to which alternative courses of action can be considered.