ISSN 1470-3947 (print) | ISSN 1479-6848 (online)

Endocrine Abstracts (2019) 66 P23 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.66.P23

Different financial models employed by diabetes transition units within Yorkshire and South West London's Children and Young People's (CYP) networks

Xanthippi Tseretopoulou1, Christina Wei2 & Amanda Peacock3

1Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Yorkshire, Harrogate, UK; 2St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 3Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate, UK

Introduction: The ultimate goal of a diabetes transition service is to provide coordinated, uninterrupted and developmentally appropriate healthcare, which promotes skills in decision-making, communication, autonomy, and self-care, with an essential component required to achieve this, being adequate resourcing.

Methods: Data from Yorkshire and South West London CYP diabetes networks were collected via questionnaire. The primary focus was to ascertain which diabetes units used Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to finance their transition service, and whether this correlated with a better resourced and more efficient transition service.

Results: Responses were received from 15/16 units in Yorkshire, and 7/11 in SW London. Within Yorkshire, 2/16 units did not receive BPT for 16–19 years. 7/16 units financed their transition service using BPT (group 1), 2/16 did not use BPT and had a reciprocal (goodwill) agreement with adult services (group 2), and 6/16 did not use BPT and financed their transition service from adult resources (group 3). All units in group 1 commented that transition services ran well and were well-resourced, having at least 4 team members in clinic, compared to 10/16 in group 3, which was less well-resourced, having at least 3 team members in clinic. Group 2 were not satisfied with their transition service. Transition preparation was initiated at a younger age in group 1 (43% started transition at 11–12 years) compared to 33% in group 3. In SW London, only 1/7 diabetes units did not receive BPT for 16–19 year olds. 6/7 units used BPT to finance their transition service and 57% (4/7) thought it ran well. The diabetes units were well resourced with 71% having at least 4 team members in clinic, and 43% started transition preparation at 11–12 years. The single unit that did not finance their transition service using BPT were dissatisfied with it.

Conclusion: The diabetes units which used BPT to finance transition, were more satisfied with their service, which was better resourced, and they initiated transition preparation at a younger age. With uncertainty regarding the future of diabetes BPT, allocating funds from BPT to develop and adequately resource the transition service should be given important consideration.

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.