Search

Introduction: For more than a decade the English NHS has pursued integrated care through three national pilot programmes. The independent evaluators of these programmes here identify several common themes that inform the development of integrated care. Description: The three pilot programmes shared the aim of better coordination between hospital and community-based health services and between health and social care. Each programme recruited local pilot sites that designed specific interventions to support inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration. The pilots were highly heterogenous and results varied both within and between the three programmes. While staff were generally positive about their achievements, pilots had mixed success especially in reducing unplanned hospital admissions. Common facilitators to achieving pilots' objectives included effective senior leadership and shared values, simple interventions and additional funding. Barriers included short timescales, poor professional engagement, information and data sharing problems, and conflicts with changing national policy. Discussion: There was little stable or shared understanding of what 'integrated care' meant resulting in different practices and priorities. An increasing focus on reducing unplanned hospital use among national sponsors created a mismatch in expectations between local and national actors. Conclusion: Pilots in all three national programmes made some headway against their objectives but were limited in their impact on unplanned hospital admissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical perspectives can be embedded into policy initiatives through a process of 'past-proofing'--ensuring new policies take the study of the past into consideration. We describe how this was done in a project looking at patient access to general practice in the NHS. We argue that current preoccupations with timeliness which have led to the marginalisation of other dimensions of access are connected to a broader process of neo-liberal reform since the 1970s. This reflection can support a reframing of the terms of current debates on a major issue in British health care. It has wider implications for the policy relevance of history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Historically, primary medical care in the UK has been delivered by general practitioners who are independent contractors, operating under a contract, which until 2004 was subject to little performance management. In keeping with the wider political impetus to introduce markets and competition into the NHS, reforms were introduced to allow new providers to bid for contracts to provide primary care services in England. These contracts known as 'Alternative Provider Medical Services', were encouraged by two centrally-driven rounds of procurement (2007/8 and 2008/9). This research investigated the commissioning and operation of such Alternative Providers of Primary Care (APPCs). Methods: Two qualitative case studies were undertaken in purposively sampled English Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and their associated APPCs over 14 months (2009-10). We observed 65 hours of meetings, conducted 23 interviews with PCT and practice staff, and gathered relevant associated documentation. Results and conclusions: We found that the procurement and contracting process was costly and timeconsuming. Extensive local consultation was undertaken, and there was considerable opposition in some areas. Many APPCs struggled to build up their patient list sizes, whilst over-performing on walk-in contracts. Contracting for APPCs was 'transactional', in marked contrast to the 'relational' contracting usually found in the NHS, with APPCs subject to tight performance management. These complicated and costly processes contrast to those experienced by traditionally owned GP partnerships. However, managers reported that the perception of competition had led existing practices to improve their services. The Coalition Government elected in 2010 is committed to 'Any Qualified Provider' of secondary care, and some commentators argue that this should also be applied to primary care. Our research suggests that, if this is to happen, a debate is needed about the operation of a market in primary care provision, including the trade-offs between transparent processes, fair procurement, performance assurance and cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate how general medical practices in the UK react to bureaucratic initiatives, such as National Health Service (NHS) National Service Frameworks (NSFs), and to explore the value of the metaphor of 'barriers to change' for understanding this. Methods: Interviews, non-participant observation and documentary analysis within case studies of four practices in northern England. Results: The practices had not actively implemented NSFs. At interview, various 'barriers' that had prevented implementation were listed, including the complexity of the documents and lack of time. Observation suggested that these barriers were constructions used by the participants to make sense of the situation in which they found themselves. Conclusion: The metaphor of 'removing barriers to change' was of limited use in a context where non-implementation of policy was an emergent property of underlying organizational realities, likely to be modifiable only if these realities were addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]