Search

The optimal balance between central governmental authority and the degree of autonomy of local public bodies is an enduring issue in public policy. The UK National Health Service is no exception, with NHS history, in part at least, a history of repeated cycles of centralisation and decentralisation of decision-making power. Most recently, a significant reorganisation of the NHS in 2012–13 was built around the creation of new and supposedly more autonomous commissioning organisations (Clinical Commissioning Groups – CCGs). Using Bossert's (1998) concept of ‘decision space’, we explored the experiences of local commissioners as they took on their new responsibilities. We interviewed commissioning staff from all of the CCGs in two regional health care ‘economies’, exploring their perceptions of autonomy and their experiences over time. We found significant early enthusiasm for, and perceptions of, increased autonomy tempered in the vertical dimension by increasingly onerous and prescriptive monitoring regimes, and in the horizontal dimension by the proliferation of overlapping networks, inter-organisational groups and relationships. We propose that, whatever the balance between central and local control that is adopted, complex public services require some sort of meso-level oversight from organisations able to ‘hold the ring’ between competing interests and to take a regional view of the needs of the local health system. This suggests that local organisational autonomy in such services will always be constrained. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Current health policy focuses on improving accessibility, increasing integration and shifting resources from hospitals to community and primary care. Initiatives aimed at achieving these policy aims have supported the implementation of various 'new models of care', including general practice offering 'additional availability' appointments during evenings and at weekends. In Greater Manchester, six 'demonstrator sites' were funded: four sites delivered additional availability appointments, other services included case management and rapid response. The aim of this paper is to explore the factors influencing the implementation of services within a programme designed to improve access to primary care. The paper consists of a qualitative process evaluation undertaken within provider organisations, including general practices, hospitals and care homes. Methods: Semi-structured interviews, with the data subjected to thematic analysis. Results: Ninety-one people participated in interviews. Six key factors were identified as important for the establishment and running of the demonstrators: information technology; information governance; workforce and organisational development; communications and engagement; supporting infrastructure; federations and alliances. These factors brought to light challenges in the attempt to provide new or modify existing services. Underpinning all factors was the issue of trust; there was consensus amongst our participants that trusting relationships, particularly between general practices, were vital for collaboration. It was also crucial that general practices trusted in the integrity of anyone external who was to work with the practice, particularly if they were to access data on the practice computer system. A dialogical approach was required, which enabled staff to see themselves as active rather than passive participants. Conclusions: The research highlights various challenges presented by the context within which extended access is implemented. Trust was the fundamental underlying issue; there was consensus amongst participants that trusting relationships were vital for effective collaboration in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]