Access to procedures of limited clinical value in the National Health Service in England: a comparative policy analysis
4 affiliations
- 1School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
- 2South West London Integrated Care Board, London, UK
- 3NHS South West London Integrated Care Board, London, UK
- 4King’s College London, London, UK
Abstract
Objectives: To systematically quantify the variation in access to criteria-based procedures across England’s National Health Service (NHS).
Design: A cross-sectional comparative policy analysis.
Setting: The NHS in England.
Participants: The analysis included publicly available commissioning policies from all 42 integrated care boards (ICBs). From an initial 175 procedures identified across policies, 163 were included in the final analysis.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: 1. Primary: The Restriction Index (RI), calculable only for procedures mentioned by at least 20% of ICBs (≥9/42), was defined as the proportion of ICBs restricting a procedure to Individual Funding Request (IFR) status, scored from 0 (consistently funded with criteria) to 1 (consistently restricted to exceptional circumstances).
2. Secondary: The Commissioning Variability Index (CVI) was an entropy-based measure quantifying the level of policy inconsistency across ICBs (including IFR, funded with criteria and not mentioned in policies) on a scale of 0% (perfect consistency) to 100% (maximum variability).
Results: Analysis of 3242 explicit commissioning decisions for 163 procedures revealed substantial variation across ICBs. The median RI was 0.1 (IQR 0.00–0.68), with 36.7% (n=40) consistently funded and 5.5% (n=6) consistently restricted. The median CVI was 50%, with only 18.4% (n=30) of procedures showing high consistency across policies (CVI ≤20%). Procedures with the highest variability in access included those related to aesthetics, musculoskeletal and Ear, Nose and Throat. Regionally, the proportion of procedures restricted to IFR ranged from 26.9% in the North East and Yorkshire to 40.7% in the North West. No significant correlation was found between procedure cost and the RI (Spearman’s ρ=0.04, p=0.75).
Conclusions: There has been a longstanding history of restricting access to certain clinical procedures in the NHS. Yet there remains a lack of consensus in commissioning policies for many of these procedures. These findings highlight an urgent need for greater standardisation in policy development to ensure equitable evidence-based care and to reduce unwarranted variation.
Related
- Comparative perioperative and follow-up outcomes of three laparoscopic reconstructive procedures for pediatric duplex kidney : A retrospective cohort study
- Women’s gynaecological and reproductive health in UK nephrology: gaps in confidence, training and service delivery from a UK National Survey
- Estimating the cost-effectiveness of the National Weight Management Enhanced Service and NHS Digital Weight Management Programme in England: a modelling study
- Prevalence and associated burden of shift work disorder (SWD) in healthcare shift workers in the UK National Health Service (NHS): a cross-sectional survey
- Rising Use of Reconstructive Cartilage Procedures of the Knee With Persistently Low Surgical Complication Rates Based on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.
BibTeX
@article{smyth2026access,
title = {{Access to procedures of limited clinical value in the National Health Service in England: a comparative policy analysis}},
author = {Jamie Smyth and Anna Ogier and Christopher Tweedie and Vageesh Jain},
journal = {BMJ Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2026-119723},
url = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-119723},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Access to procedures of limited clinical value in the National Health Service in England: a comparative policy analysis
AU - Jamie Smyth
AU - Anna Ogier
AU - Christopher Tweedie
AU - Vageesh Jain
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/22
JO - BMJ Open
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-119723
UR - https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-119723
AB - Objectives: To systematically quantify the variation in access to criteria-based procedures across England’s National Health Service (NHS). Design: A cross-sectional comparative policy analysis. Setting: The NHS in England. Participants: The analysis included publicly available commissioning policies from all 42 integrated care boards (ICBs). From an initial 175 procedures identified across policies, 163 were included in the final analysis. Primary and secondary outcome measures: 1. Primary: The Restriction Index (RI), calculable only for procedures mentioned by at least 20% of ICBs (≥9/42), was defined as the proportion of ICBs restricting a procedure to Individual Funding Request (IFR) status, scored from 0 (consistently funded with criteria) to 1 (consistently restricted to exceptional circumstances). 2. Secondary: The Commissioning Variability Index (CVI) was an entropy-based measure quantifying the level of policy inconsistency across ICBs (including IFR, funded with criteria and not mentioned in policies) on a scale of 0% (perfect consistency) to 100% (maximum variability). Results: Analysis of 3242 explicit commissioning decisions for 163 procedures revealed substantial variation across ICBs. The median RI was 0.1 (IQR 0.00–0.68), with 36.7% (n=40) consistently funded and 5.5% (n=6) consistently restricted. The median CVI was 50%, with only 18.4% (n=30) of procedures showing high consistency across policies (CVI ≤20%). Procedures with the highest variability in access included those related to aesthetics, musculoskeletal and Ear, Nose and Throat. Regionally, the proportion of procedures restricted to IFR ranged from 26.9% in the North East and Yorkshire to 40.7% in the North West. No significant correlation was found between procedure cost and the RI (Spearman’s ρ=0.04, p=0.75). Conclusions: There has been a longstanding history of restricting access to certain clinical procedures in the NHS. Yet there remains a lack of consensus in commissioning policies for many of these procedures. These findings highlight an urgent need for greater standardisation in policy development to ensure equitable evidence-based care and to reduce unwarranted variation.
SN - 2044-6055
SN - 2044-6055
ER -