Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

De-implementation of healthcare interventions post-COVID-19: evidence from the Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme in England

  • Joel Glynn
  • , Tim Jones
  • , Mike Bell
  • , Jane M Blazeby
  • , Christopher Burton
  • , Carmel Conefrey
  • , Jenny Donovan
  • , Nicola Farrar
  • , Josie Morley
  • , Angus GK McNair
  • , Amanda Owen-Smith
  • , Ellen Rule
  • , Gail Thornton
  • , Victoria Tucker
  • , Iestyn Williams
  • , Leila Rooshenas
  • , William Hollingworth
    • University of Bristol Medical School
    • University of Bristol Musculoskeletal Research Unit
    • National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
    • NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre
    • Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board (ICB)
    • Bristol Zoological Society
    • University of Birmingham Health Services Management Centre

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Objectives: We explored the effectiveness of the Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme which aimed to reduce the number of inappropriate procedures or diagnostic tests (‘interventions’) in the English National Health Service (NHS). For 12 interventions, we evaluated whether expected intervention counts fell or geographical variation was reduced across England following the publication of EBI Wave 2 guidance in November 2020. Design: We conducted a retrospective observational study utilising routine hospital data. We applied a controlled interrupted time series analysis to examine both step and trend changes in the use of EBI interventions following the publication of the EBI Wave 2. We compared geographical variation in intervention rates pre-EBI and post-EBI.

    Setting: English hospitals where NHS funded elective healthcare interventions are performed.

    Participants: Patients who had NHS-funded elective interventions in England from March 2018 to February 2022 inclusive. Results: Half of the 12 interventions evaluated had significantly lower counts compared with their controls by February 2022. For five of these interventions, counts were between 20% and 57% lower than expected. This was the result of either (1) a larger fall in procedure counts by the end of the pandemic period (n=4 interventions); (2) declining counts post-pandemic (n=1); or (3) a combination of both (n=1). The remaining six interventions had similar or greater than expected counts by February 2022. There was limited evidence of reductions in geographical variation in procedure rates after publication of EBI guidance.

    Conclusions: Wave 2 of the EBI programme had a mixed impact on the use of the interventions targeted. There were some successes, however, following significant reduction in the use of elective care during the pandemic, half of the interventions evaluated returned to utilisation at or above predicted levels.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)e088256
    JournalBritish Medical Journal Open
    Volume16
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 30 Mar 2026

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

    • Implementation science
    • Health economics
    • COVID-19
    • Surgery
    • Health policy

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'De-implementation of healthcare interventions post-COVID-19: evidence from the Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme in England'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this