Search

Objective: Little is known about how to achieve scale and spread beyond the early local adoption of an innovative health care programme. We use the New Care Model – or 'Vanguard' – programme in the English National Health Service to illuminate the process, assessing why only one of five Vanguard programmes was successfully scaled up. Methods: We interviewed a wide range of stakeholders involved in the Vanguard programme, including programme leads, provider organisations, and policymakers. We also consulted relevant documentation. Results: A lack of direction near the end of the Vanguard programme, a lack of ongoing resources, and limited success in providing real-time monitoring and evaluation may all have contributed to the failure to scale and spread most of the Vanguard models. Conclusions: This programme is an example of the 'scale and spread paradox', in which localism was a key factor influencing the successful implementation of the Vanguards but ultimately limited their scale and spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy driven change is challenging, with a significant gap between theory and practice. A key tension in enacting such change is achieving a balance between bottom-up development of local, context-specific approaches, and top-down, centrally determined policy solutions and their mutual sequencing. Ideal type models of the policy-making process envisage a rational ordered approach, driven by evidence and accompanied by ongoing evaluation of outcomes (Parsons, 1995, p77); however, the reality is far more complex. We examine the implementation and early operation of the New Care Models (NCM) Vanguard programme in England, using Matland's (1995) ambiguity-conflict model, to explore the aims and expectations of the programme. We consider the relationship between top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy development and draw attention to the pressures coming from what was initially perceived as a permissive policy approach of encouraging experimentation, whilst also requiring rapid learning, scale and spread. We suggest that future programmes for large-scale policy implementation initiatives could be crafted differently to take account of the environment of implementation and render ambitions more realistic. Rather than aiming to create a set of definite products and templates, it may be that a set of principles for design and implementation should be developed and spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper aims to explore the nature of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England as membership organizations. Utilizing the concept of meta-organization as a lens, we discuss the impact that this organizational form might have on CCGs' ability to become 'strategic commissioners'. Methods: We used a longitudinal qualitative approach to explore the adoption and implementation of primary care co-commissioning. The study was undertaken between May 2015 and June 2017 and included interviews with senior policy makers, analysis of policy documents, two telephone surveys, and case studies in four CCGs nationally. Results: CCGs operate as membership organizations with closed boundary and low stratification, whereby a consensus or majority needs to be reached by members when activities impact on membership or the CCG's constitution. While CCGs should move towards a more strategic commissioning role that is focused on local priorities agreed by their members, they are faced with a complex system of accountabilities and responsibilities, which makes this difficult to achieve. Conclusions: The nature of CCGs as membership-based meta-organizations has the potential to both help and hinder CCGs in becoming strategic commissioners. The complexities in accountability and governance that the membership approach introduces, and the potential difficulties that CCGs face with competing meta-organizations, raises questions about the future of CCGs as membership organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of key informants on a national support programme for the development of new care models (NCM) in England (2015/2016–2017/2018). It focuses on the perceived facilitators and barriers affecting the development and implementation of the NCM programme and offers some insight into the role of national level support in enabling local integration initiatives. Design/methodology/approach: A set of 29 interviews were carried out with a variety of respondents at the national level (including current and past programme leads, strategic account managers, advisors to the programme and external regulators) between October 2017 and March 2018, and analysed thematically. Findings: A set of facilitative elements of the programme were identified: the development of relationships and alliances, strong local and national leadership, the availability of expert knowledge and skills, and additional funding. Challenges to success included perceived expectations from the national Vanguard programme, oversight and performance monitoring, engagement with regulators, data availability and quality, as well as timetables and timescales. Crucially, the facilitators and challenges were found to interact in dynamic and complex ways, which resulted in significant tensions and ambiguities within the support programme. Research limitations/implications: While the sample was drawn from a range of different senior players and the authors ensured a diverse sample associated with the NCM support programme, it inevitably cannot be complete and there may have been valuable perspectives absent. Originality/value: The paper demonstrates that the analysis of facilitators and challenges with respect to the national support of implementation of integrated care initiatives should move beyond the focus on separate influencing factors and address the tensions that the complex interplay among these factors create. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the managerial behaviours adopted by commissioning managers in English primary care trusts (PCTs), and to explore the impact of these behaviours. Methods: Qualitative case studies were undertaken in four PCTs, focusing on staff engaged in the commissioning of hospital services. Both formal and informal observation were undertaken (150 hours), and 41 in-depth interviews conducted with managers and general practitioners (GPs). Results: Managers adopted many managerial behaviours familiar from the literature, including sharing information, and networking inside and outside the organization. Multiple organizational layers and unclear decision-making processes hindered this activity. In addition, some managers with responsibility for facilitating practice-based commissioning (PbC) adopted a managerial mode that we have called being an 'animateur'. This approach involved the active management of disparate groups of people over whom the manager had no authority, and appeared to be a factor in determining success. It was facilitated by managerial autonomy and was more prevalent where managers were seen to have legitimacy. Some organizational practices appeared to inhibit its development. Conclusions: From 2012/13 it is planned that GPs will be taking more responsibility for commissioning in the English NHS. This research suggests that managers of the new commissioning organizations will require a deep and contextualized understanding of the NHS and that it is important that organizational processes do not inhibit managerial behaviour. Legitimacymay be an issue in contexts were managers are automatically transferred from their existing appointments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]