SummaryBackgroundThere is a scarcity of evidence about the role of patient choice and hospital competition policies on surgical cancer services. Previous evidence has shown that patients are prepared to bypass their nearest cancer centre to receive surgery at more distant centres that better meet their needs. In this national, population-based study we investigated the effect of patient mobility and hospital competition on service configuration and technology adoption in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, using prostate cancer surgery as a model.MethodsWe mapped all patients in England who underwent radical prostatectomy between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2014, according to place of residence and treatment location. For each radical prostatectomy centre we analysed the effect of hospital competition (measured by use of a spatial competition index [SCI], with a score of 0 indicating weakest competition and 1 indicating strongest competition) and the effect of being an established robotic radical prostatectomy centre at the start of 2010 on net gains or losses of patients (difference between number of patients treated in a centre and number expected based on their residence), and the likelihood of closing their radical prostatectomy service.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2014, 19 256 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at an NHS provider in England. Of the 65 radical prostatectomy centres open at the start of the study period, 23 (35%) had a statistically significant net gain of patients during 2010–14. Ten (40%) of these 23 were established robotic centres. 37 (57%) of the 65 centres had a significant net loss of patients, of which two (5%) were established robotic centres and ten (27%) closed their radical prostatectomy service during the study period. Radical prostatectomy centres that closed were more likely to be located in areas with stronger competition (highest SCI quartile [0·87–0·92]; p=0·0081) than in areas with weaker competition. No robotic surgery centre closed irrespective of the size of net losses of patients. The number of centres performing robotic surgery increased from 12 (18%) of the 65 centres at the beginning of 2010 to 39 (71%) of 55 centres open at the end of 2014.InterpretationCompetitive factors, in addition to policies advocating centralisation and the requirement to do minimum numbers of surgical procedures, have contributed to large-scale investment in equipment for robotic surgery without evidence of superior outcomes and contributed to the closure of cancer surgery units. If quality performance and outcome indicators are not available to guide patient choice, these policies could threaten health services' ability to deliver equitable and affordable cancer care.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Our review establishes the empirical evidence for patient mobility for elective secondary care services in countries that allow patients to choose their health care provider. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles between 1990 and 2015. Of 5,994 titles/abstracts reviewed, 26 studies were included. The studies used three main methodological models to establish mobility. Variation in the extent of patient mobility was observed across the studies. Mobility was positively associated with lower waiting times, indicators of better service quality, and access to advanced technology. It was negatively associated with advanced age or lower socioeconomic backgrounds. From a policy perspective we demonstrate that a significant proportion of patients are prepared to travel beyond their nearest provider for elective services. As a consequence, some providers are likely to be “winners” and others “losers,” which could result in overall decreased provider capacity or inefficient utilization of existing services. Equity also remains a key concern.

In this study, we assessed the reasons why men would choose to have prostate cancer surgery at a centre other than their nearest. We found that in England men were attracted to centres that carried out robotic surgery and employed surgeons with a national reputation.

We found no evidence of an association between absolute exposure to fast-food restaurants and convenience stores around home and school and adolescents' fast-food and SSB intakes. Relative exposure, which measures the local diversity of the neighbourhood food environment, was positively associated with SSB intake. Relative measures of the food environment may better capture the environmental risks for poor diet than absolute measures.