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]

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]

Metaphors are inescapable in human discourse. Policy researchers have suggested that the use of particular metaphors by those implementing policy changes both influences perceptions of underlying reality and determines what solutions seem possible, and that exploring 'practice languages' is important in understanding how policy is enacted. This paper contributes to the literature exploring the generative nature of metaphors in policy implementation, demonstrating their role in not just describing the world, but also framing it, determining what is seen/unseen, and what solutions seem possible. The metaphor 'care pathway' is ubiquitous and institutionalised in healthcare. We build upon existing work critiquing its use in care delivery, and explore its use in health care commissioning, using evidence from the recent reorganisation of the English NHS. We show that the pathways metaphor is ubiquitous, but not necessarily straightforward. Conceptualising health care planning as 'designing a pathway' may make the task more difficult, suggesting a limited range of approaches and solutions. We offer an alternative metaphor: the service map. We discuss how approaches to care design might be altered by using this different metaphor, and explore what it might offer. We argue not for a barren language devoid of metaphors, but for their more conscious use. [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]

In spite of their widespread use in policy making in the UK and elsewhere, there is a relatively sparse literature specifically devoted to policy pilots. Recent research on policy piloting has focused on the role of pilots in making policy work in accordance with national agendas. Taking this as a point of departure, the present paper develops the notion of pilots doing policy work. It does this by situating piloting within established theories of policy formulation and implementation, and illustrating using an empirical case. Our case is drawn from a qualitative policy ethnography of a local government pilot programme aiming to extend access to healthcare services. Our case explores the collective entrepreneurship of regional policy makers together with local pilot volunteers. We argue that pilots work to mobilise and manage the ambiguity and conflict associated with particular policy goals, and in their structure and design, shape action towards particular outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of the generative but managed role which piloting affords to local implementers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To explore the ‘added value’ that general practitioners (GPs) bring to commissioning in the English NHS. We describe the experience of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the context of previous clinically led commissioning policy initiatives. Methods Realist evaluation. We identified the programme theories underlying the claims made about GP ‘added value’ in commissioning from interviews with key informants. We tested these theories against observational data from four case study sites to explore whether and how these claims were borne out in practice. Results The complexity of CCG structures means CCGs are quite different from one another with different distributions of responsibilities between the various committees. This makes it difficult to compare CCGs with one another. Greater GP involvement was important but it was not clear where and how GPs could add most value. We identified some of the mechanisms and conditions which enable CCGs to maximize the ‘added value’ that GPs bring to commissioning. Conclusion To maximize the value of clinical input, CCGs need to invest time and effort in preparing those involved, ensuring that they systematically gather evidence about service gaps and problems from their members, and engaging members in debate about the future shape of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

‘Integrated care’ is pitched as the solution to current health system challenges. In the literature, what integrated care actually involves is complex and contested. Multi-disciplinary team case management is frequently the primary focus of integrated care when implemented internationally. We examine the practical application of integrated care in the NHS in England to exemplify the prevalence of the case management focus. We look at the evidence for effectiveness of multi-disciplinary team case management, for the focus on high-risk groups and for integrated care more generally. We suggest realistic expectations of what integration of care alone can achieve and additional research questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The inclusion of health and social care as part of Greater Manchester devolution took many by surprise. Health and social care practitioners and managers have been working together in differing ways across the conurbation for many years. The formalisation of this working in a set of new organisational structures brings both opportunities and challenges. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 created new organisations within the English National Health Service (NHS) and added greatly to the complexity of the health and care system. Since the 1990s, this system has been characterised by the split between purchasers and providers of care. The devolution proposals add an extra layer of organisational complexity and they rely heavily on collaboration and co-operation rather than competition. We explore areas of potential tension and difficulty focussing on: public participation in health and care devolution; the imperative to simultaneously compete and collaborate; and blurred lines of responsibility and accountability between new organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this essay, I explore the rise of the concept of ‘leadership’ in the English NHS, highlighting the similarity with a previous shift from (bad, old) ‘administration’ to (good, new) ‘management’. I take a critical look at this discursive shift and highlight some of the overblown claims made for the value of ‘clinical leadership’. I argue that, rather than turning all NHS staff into leaders, we should perhaps tone down the level of our rhetoric and instead emphasize the need for a service full of good followers who will maintain a relentless focus on care, quality and efficiency. [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]

The English NHS is currently organised around a split between the ‘commissioning’ and the ‘providing’ of health care. There has been considerable critical comment about commissioning, focusing upon perceived inadequacies of the regulatory structure and a perceived lack of competence of the managers concerned. In this paper, we use empirical data from two detailed studies of commissioning to propose a third explanation of the difficulties that have been observed in making commissioning work. We apply Scott's institutional analysis to the issue, arguing that far from reflecting managerial incompetence, some of the difficulties experienced are inherent in the normative and cultural/cognitive pillars of the NHS institution, so that there is a lack of ‘fit’ between commissioning and the institutional characteristics of the NHS. We conclude by exploring the potential impact of the latest round of NHS changes on this institution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

Alford's theory of structural interests has been used as a framework within which to analyse health systems across the world. However, authors have often been uncritical in their acceptance of Alford's original analytic categories. In this article we use data from a detailed qualitative study of the introduction of Practice Based Commissioning in the UK NHS to interrogate Alford's work more critically. Disrupting Alford's original categories of 'professional monopolisers' as dominant interests, challenged by management 'corporate rationalisers', we suggest that the new structures established in the NHS since 2002 systematically privilege an interest that we call 'corporate monopolisers', and that this is under challenge from 'professional rationalisers'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For Freidson [(1985). The reorganisation of the medical profession. Medical Care Review, 42(1), 11–35], collegiality, or ostensible equal status amongst members of the medical profession, serves a dual purpose. It socialises members into an attitude of loyalty to colleagues and presents an image to those outside the profession that all its members are competent and trustworthy. However, Freidson saw the use of formal standards developed by one (knowledge) elite within medicine and enforced by another (administrative) elite as threatening collegiality and professional unity. Drawing on two studies in English primary medical care this paper reports the emergence of new strata or elites, with groups of doctors involved in surveillance of others and action to improve compliance in deficient individuals and organizations. Early indications are that these developments have not led to the consequences which Freidson predicted. The increasing acceptance of the legitimacy of professional scrutiny and accountability that we identify suggests that new norms are emerging in English primary medical care, the possibility of which Freidson''s analysis fails to take account. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: To investigate the issues raised by participants as 'barriers' to the development of Practice-based Commissioning (PBC) in 'early adopter' sites in England. Methods: Detailed case studies of five PBC consortia in three Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). Data collection included interviews with a wide range of respondents (46 in total), including general practitioners, PCT employees, Local Authority employees and patient representatives, observation of many different types of meetings (68 in total), and analysis of documents tabled at meetings and circulated at other times. Results: It has been claimed that progress in developing PBC has been slow. Our respondents articulated a number of factors that they felt were holding them back, which could have been identified as 'barriers' preventing change. The issues raised were consistent across our sites (lack of time, resources and personnel, and difficult relationships with the PCT), but observation suggested that these issues arose out of very different organizational 'sensemaking', and as a result the apparent 'barriers' had different meanings in different organizational contexts. Conclusion: Weick's concept of 'organizational sensemaking' provides a useful framework within which to explore the problems encountered when implementing policy. Observational methods are a powerful tool in understanding sensemaking. The variations in sensemaking that we observed suggest that the use of 'barrier' metaphors in descriptions of implementation problems risks homogenizing the portrayal of situations that differ greatly in reality. This implies that top-down or centrally driven solutions to such situations will often be inappropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new General Medical Services contract was introduced into general practice in the UK in 2004, and it links pay to performance far more than in the past. As a result, accurate data collection about patients and the care that they receive is now not only important for good patient care but also to prove that targets are being met. The use of electronic records and information technology has thus become much more sophisticated. This article reports the results from an ethnographic study of the early stages of the new contract in two general practices. As expected, electronic data collection had increased in importance in both practices, with consequences both for clinician–patient interactions and for the structures and processes in the practices, as uniform data collection instruments are put in place that privilege ‘hard’ biomedical data that can be easily coded above ‘softer’, more patient-centred information. Roles and responsibilities had been changed to reflect the needs of the new systems, and new software applications allowed increased surveillance of both doctors’ and nurses’ performance; both of these had an impact on patterns of authority in our study practices. Furthermore, the structural changes that were found acted to embed the new ways of working, ensuring their reproduction in the future. In spite of these effects, we found little opposition to or critical reflection on the changes, and the doctors in our study continued to view their improved computer systems as neutral recording devices. The implication of these findings is discussed. [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]

The article responds to an article based on the limitations of programme theory evaluation in relation to healthcare policies, comprising its missing issues. Topics addressed include information on the missing issues such as research funding and need for research findings to speak to a relevant audience on the ground and details on the values of the programme theory approach that it has face validity with policy makers and with local managers.

After years of being shielded from most of the managerial and organisational changes in health care, primary care is going through a period of change in many countries. Much of the research that has been done in primary care, in common with that in secondary care, puts at the centre of its methodology the concept of professionalism. However, there are other ways of theorising medical work, and using a wider range of theoretical 'lenses' when planning research into the impact of change will enhance and enrich that research. Viewing primary care physicians as 'workers', concerned, like other workers, with constructing understanding of what they do that helps them cope with pressures and uncertainties, shifts the focus of research questions away from issues of professional status towards the practical ways in which they deal with change in their local contexts. Research using this theoretical approach may be able to explain phenomena that other, more broad-brush approaches cannot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In England, primary care networks (PCNs) offer opportunities to improve access to and sustainability of general practice through collaboration between groups of practices to provide care with a broader range of practitioner roles. However, there are concerns that these changes may undermine continuity of care. Our study investigates what the organisational shift to PCNs means for continuity of care. Methods: The paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews with general practitioners and other healthcare professionals (HCPs, n = 33) in 19 practices in five PCNs, and their patients (n = 35). Three patient cohorts within each participating practice were recruited, based on anticipated higher or lower needs for continuity of care: patients over 65 years with polypharmacy, patients with anxiety or depression and 'working age' adults aged between 18 and 45 years. Findings: Patients and clinicians perceived changes to continuity in PCNs in our study. Larger‐scale care provision in PCNs required better care coordination and information‐sharing processes, aimed at improving care for 'vulnerable' patients in target groups. However, new working arrangements and ways of delivering care in PCNs undermine HCPs' ability to maintain continuity through ongoing relationships with patients. Patients experience this in terms of reduced availability of their preferred clinician, inefficiencies in care and unfamiliarity of new staff, roles and processes. Conclusions: New practitioners need to be effectively integrated to support effective team‐based care. However, for patients, especially those not deemed 'vulnerable', this may not be sufficient to counter the loss of relationship with their practice. Therefore, caution is required in relation to designating patients as in need of, or not in need of continuity. Rather, continuity for all patients could be maintained through a dynamic understanding of the need for it as fluctuating and situational and by supporting clinicians to provide follow‐up care. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): A PPI group was recruited and consulted during the study for feedback on the study design, recruitment materials and interpretation of findings. [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]

Objectives: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced Clinical Commissioning Groups to take responsibility for commissioning (i.e. planning and purchasing) the majority of services for local populations in the English NHS. Constituted as 'membership organizations', with membership compulsory for all GP practices, Clinical Commissioning Groups are overseen by, and are accountable to, a new arm's-length body, NHS England. This paper critically engages with the content and policy narrative of the 2012 Act and explores this in relation to the reality of local policy enactment. Methods: Set against a careful review of the 2012 Act, a case study of a nascent Clinical Commissioning Groups was conducted. The research included observations of Clinical Commissioning Group meetings and events (87 h), and indepth interviews (16) with clinical commissioners, GPs, and managers. Results: The 2012 Act was presented as part of a broader government agenda of decentralization and localism. Clinical Commissioning Group membership organizations were framed as a means of better meeting the needs and preferences of local patients and realizing a desirable increase in localism. The policy delineated the 'governing body' and 'the membership', with the former elected from/by the latter to oversee the organization. 'The membership' was duty bound to be 'good', engaged members and to represent their patients' interests. Fieldwork with Notchcroft Clinical Commissioning Group revealed that Clinical Commissioning Groups' statutory duty to NHS England to 'ensure the continuous improvement' of GP practice members involved performance scrutiny of GP practices. These governance processes were carried out by a varied cast of individuals, many of whom did not fit into the binary categorization of membership and governing body constructed in the policy. A concept, the governing assemblage, was developed to describe the dynamic cast of people involved in shaping the work and direction of the Clinical Commissioning Group, many of whom were unelected and of uncertain status. This was of particular significance in Notchcroft Clinical Commissioning Group because the organization explicitly pursued a governance system based on developing positions of consensus. The governing assemblage concept is valuable in articulating the actual practices of Clinical Commissioning Group governance, how these relate to the normative content of the 2012 Act, and the tensions that emerge. Conclusions: The governing assemblage concept provided clarity in discussion of the dynamics of organizational governance in Notchcroft Clinical Commissioning Group, which did not follow the simple template articulated in the 2012 Act. The concept merits application in the study of other Clinical Commissioning Groups and may prove valuable in illuminating governance processes within a range of other health care organizations in different contexts. The governing assemblage holds promise for the analysis of ongoing changes to NHS organization, as well as international health care organizations such as accountable care organizations in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems must transition from catering primarily to acute conditions, to meet the increasing burden of chronic disease and multimorbidity. Case management is a popular method of integrating care, seeking to accomplish this goal. However, the intervention has shown limited effectiveness. We explore whether the effects of case management vary in patients with different types of multimorbidity.Methods: We extended a previously published quasi-experiment (difference-in-differences analysis) with 2049 propensity matched case management intervention patients, adding an additional interaction term to determine subgroup effects (difference-in-difference-in-differences) by different conceptualisations of multimorbidity: 1) Mental-physical comorbidity versus others; 2) 3+ chronic conditions versus <3; 3) Discordant versus concordant conditions; 4) Cardiovascular/metabolic cluster conditions only versus others; 5) Mental health-associated cluster conditions only versus others; 6) Musculoskeletal disorder cluster conditions only versus others 7) Charlson index >5 versus others. Outcome measures included a variety of secondary care utilisation and cost measures.Results: The majority of conceptualisations suggested little to no difference in effect between subgroups. Where results were significant, the vast majority of effect sizes identified in either direction were very small. The trend across the majority of the results appeared to show very slight increases of admissions with treatment for the most complex patients (highest risk). The exceptions to this, patients with a Charlson index >5 may benefit slightly more from case management with decreased ACSC admissions (effect size (ES): −0.06) and inpatient re-admissions (30 days, ES: −0.05), and patients with only cardiovascular/metabolic cluster conditions may benefit slightly more with decreased inpatient non-elective admissions (ES: −0.12). Only the three significant estimates for the musculoskeletal disorder cluster met the minimum requirement for at least a ‘small’ effect. Two of these estimates in particular were very large. This cluster represented only 0.5% of the total patients analysed, however, so is hugely vulnerable to the effects of outliers, and makes us very cautious of interpreting these as ‘real’ effects.Conclusion: Our results indicate no appropriate multimorbidity subgroup at which to target the case management intervention in terms of secondary care utilisation/cost outcomes. The most complex, highest risk patients may legitimately require hospitalisation, and the intensified management may better identify these unmet needs. End of life patients (e.g. Charlson index >5)/those with only conditions particularly amenable to primary care management (e.g. cardiovascular/metabolic cluster conditions) may benefit very slightly more than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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 time-consuming. 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]

Public-Private Innovation Partnerships (PPIPs) are increasingly used as a tool for addressing 'wicked' public sector challenges. 'Innovation' is, however, frequently treated as a 'magic' concept: used unreflexively, taken to be axiomatically 'good', and left undefined within policy programmes. Using McConnell's framework of policy success and failure and a case study of a multi-level PPIP in the English health service (NHS Test Beds), this paper critically explores the implications of the mobilisation of innovation in PPIP policy and practice. We highlight how the interplay between levels (macro/micro and policy maker/recipient) can shape both emerging policies and their prospects for success or failure. The paper contributes to an understanding of PPIP success and failure by extending McConnell's framework to explore inter-level effects between policy and innovation project, and demonstrating how the success of PPIP policy cannot be understood without recognising the particular political effects of 'innovation' on formulation and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on implications of devolution project in Greater Manchester, England for public health. Topics discussed include development of Greater Manchester into a modern industrial metropolis during industrial revolution, transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to a local or regional administration, Scotland Bill as the biggest transfer of powers away from Westminster if passed, and issues in budgets and budgetary control by devolution.

High quality primary care is a foundational element of effective health services. Internationally, primary care physicians (general practitioners (GPs), family doctors) are experiencing significant workload pressures. How non-patient-facing work contributes to these pressures and what constitutes this work is poorly understood and often unrecognised and undervalued by patients, policy makers, and even clinicians engaged in it. This paper examines non-patient-facing work ethnographically, informed by practice theory, the Listening Guide, and empirical ethics. Ethnographic observations (104 h), in-depth interviews (n = 16; 8 with GPs and 8 with other primary care staff) and reflexive workshops were conducted in two general practices in England. Our analysis shows that 'hidden work' was integral to direct patient care, involving diverse clinical practices such as: interpreting test results; crafting referrals; and accepting interruptions from clinical colleagues. We suggest the term 'hidden care work' more accurately reflects the care-ful nature of this work, which was laden with ambiguity and clinical uncertainty. Completing hidden care work outside of expected working hours was normalised, creating feelings of inefficiency, and exacerbating workload pressure. Pushing tasks forward into an imagined future (when conditions might allow its completion) commonly led to overspill into GPs' own time. GPs experienced tension between their desire to provide safe, continuous, 'caring' care and the desire to work a manageable day, in a context of increasing demand and burgeoning complexity. • The non-patient-facing work of general practitioners is often invisible or hidden. • Hidden work is associated with complexity and uncertainty. • Behind-the-scenes work is care work, just as direct work with patients is care work. • Doctors face tensions between completing tasks and working a manageable day. • Combining practice theory with the Listening Guide embraces multi-vocality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the UK's NHS, as in many health systems, the primary method of integrating care at the service delivery level appears to rely on case management of 'high-risk' individuals in primary care.1 We aimed to evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention across a number of health system outcomes using a robust quasi-experimental study design, modelling effects at both the individual- (to capture direct effects of intervention) and practice-levels (to capture any potential spill-over effects of integrated care for the wider system). Short description of practice change implemented, aims, target population and key stakeholders involved. We evaluated a MDT case management intervention at a single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the NHS. The intervention identified the top 2% highest risk patients in each of 30 practices in the CCG using a risk tool (the Combined Predictive Risk Model), and provided tailored care plans with input from an MDT (composing of a GP, practice nurse, district nurse, social worker and active case manager), together with a summary record of care which could be accessed by multiple providers for the intervention patients. The intervention aimed to reduce unnecessary secondary care admissions for the high-risk patients managed. With gradually recruited practices, then individuals to the intervention group, we used a difference-in-differences design with multiple start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. At the individual-level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring oneto- one with control patients, with a maximum post-intervention period of 18 months and pretrend period of 3 years. At the practice-level, we exploited the natural experiment of gradual roll-out of the intervention to 30 practices in the CCG. We looked at a number of relevant outcome measures at both levels of analysis. Primary measures, according to intervention aims were: A&E visits; inpatient non-elective admissions, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective admissions; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included: inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice-level only). Key findings: After adjusting for confounders, for intervention patients at the individuallevel, we found very slight, but statistically significant increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+ 0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02), and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). At the individual-level, results may be prone to some bias in favour of control participants due to the on-going recruitment strategy versus a single time-point propensity matching, although we predict this to be small as patients were well matched at the first start date. At the practice-level, after adjusting for practice and time fixed-effects, we found a small decrease in inpatient non-elective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; 95% confidence interval -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result was no longer significant following our practice-specific time trend robustness check (-0.52; -1.05 to 0.01). There is potential selection bias in favour of intervention practices due to the voluntary nature of the intervention's roll-out, although we predict this to be small based on our model of wave of entry based on practice characteristics. Highlights: For direct-effects of the intervention, this study finds mostly clinically trivial (albeit some statistically significant) differences between groups. This fits with findings from our previous systematic review and meta-analysis looking at effects of similar case management interventions aimed at generally 'at-risk' patients.2. However, we found indications of potentially small beneficial system effects of multidisciplinary team working for the wider practice, a possible spill-over effect of increased professional integration. The clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of these small absolute effects is debatable, and there may be better ways to obtain these system effects in terms of opportunity cost. Conclusion: Here we show that MDT case management does not fulfil its primary aim, preventing emergency admissions for the high-risk patients it targets. However, we do show some indications of what may be small beneficial spill-over effects of MDT working at the practice-level, but these results do not withstand our robustness check and require further examination. An intervention which does not fulfil its primary aim may nevertheless be a poor substitute to alternatives for achieving professional integration and its potential system benefits. This study, however, indicates that these system benefits may be possible through multidisciplinary working. Case management alone may never be as effective as it needs to be to deliver major savings through a focus on high risk groups.3 This highlights the need for a variety of models to deal with system pressures, including integrated care at different levels of the health and care system, and with more of a focus on the wider population.4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The implementation of evidence-based medicine and policies aimed at increasing user involvement in health care decisions are central planks of contemporary English health policy. Yet they are potentially in conflict. Our aim was to explore how clinicians working in the field of heart failure resolve this conflict. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out with health professionals who were currently caring for patients with heart failure, and observations were conducted at one dedicated heart failure clinic in northern England. Results: While clinicians acknowledged that patients' ideas and preferences should be an important part of treatment decisions, the widespread acceptance of an evidence-based clinical protocol for heart failure among the clinic doctors significantly influenced the content and style of the consultation. Conclusion: Evidence-based medicine was used to buttress professional authority and seemed to provide an additional barrier to the adoption of patient-centred clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With innovation in service delivery increasingly viewed as crucial to the long-term sustainability of health systems, NHS England launched an ambitious new model of care (Vanguard) programme in 2015. Supported by a £350 million transformation fund, 50 Vanguard sites were to act as pilots for innovation in service delivery, to move quickly to change the way that services were delivered, breaking down barriers between sectors and improving the coordination and delivery of care.Methods: As part of a national evaluation of the Vanguard programme, we conducted an evidence synthesis to assess the nature and quality of locally commissioned evaluations. With access to a secure, online hub used by the Vanguard and other integrated care initiatives, two researchers retrieved any documents from a locally commissioned evaluation for inclusion. All identified documents were downloaded and logged, and details of the evaluators, questions, methodological approaches and limitations in design and/or reporting were extracted. As included evaluations varied in nature and type, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.Results: We identified a total of 115 separate reports relating to the locally commissioned evaluations. Five prominent issues relating to evaluation conduct were identified across included reports: use of logic models, number and type of evaluation questions posed, data sharing and information governance, methodological challenges and evaluation reporting in general. A combination of resource, data and time constraints means that evaluations often attempted to but did not fully address the wide range of questions posed by individual Vanguards.Conclusions: Significant investment was made in independent local evaluations of the Vanguard programme by NHS England. This synthesis represents the only comprehensive attempt to capture methodological learning and may serve as a key resource for researchers and policy-makers seeking to understand investigating large-scale system change, both within the NHS and internationally. PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42017069282). [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]

ABSTRACT Objective To explore the impact of financial incentives for quality of care on practice organisation, clinical autonomy, and internal motivation of doctors and nurses working in primary care. 1 Design Ethnographic case study. Setting Two English general practices. Participants 12 general practitioners, nine nurses, four healthcare assistants, and four administrative staff. Main outcome measure Observation of practices over a five month period after the introduction of financial incentives for quality of care introduced in the 2004 general practitioner contract. Results After the introduction of the quality and outcomes framework there was an increase in the use of templates to collect data on quality of care. New regimens of surveillance were adopted, with clinicians seen as "chasers" or the "chased," depending on their individual responsibility for delivering quality targets. Attitudes towards the contract were largely positive, although discontent was higher in the practice with a more intensive surveillance regimen. Nurses expressed more concern than doctors about changes to their clinical practice but also appreciated being given responsibility for delivering on targets in particular disease areas. Most doctors did not question the quality targets that existed at the time or the implications of the targets for their own clinical autonomy. Conclusions Implementation of financial incentives for quality of care did not seem to have damaged the internal motivation of the general practitioners studied, although more concern was expressed by nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This paper explores how ‘place’ is conceptualised and mobilized in health policy and considers the implications of this. Using the on-going spatial reorganizing of the English NHS as an exemplar, we draw upon relational geographies of place for illumination. We focus on the introduction of ‘Sustainability and Transformation Plans’ (STPs): positioned to support improvements in care and relieve financial pressures within the health and social care system. STP implementation requires collaboration between organizations within 44 bounded territories that must reach ‘local’ consensus about service redesign under conditions of unprecedented financial constraint. Emphasising the continued influence of previous reorganizations, we argue that such spatialized practices elude neat containment within coherent territorial geographies. Rather than a technical process financially and spatially ‘fixing’ health and care systems, STPs exemplify post-politics—closing down the political dimensions of policy-making by associating ‘place’ with ‘local’ empowerment to undertake highly resource-constrained management of health systems, distancing responsibility from national political processes. Relational understandings of place thus provide value in understanding health policies and systems, and help to identify where and how STPs might experience difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The UK National Health Service Emergency Departments (ED) have recently faced increasing attendance rates. This study investigated associations of general practice and practice population characteristics with emergency care service attendance rates.Methods: A longitudinal design with practice-level measures of access and continuity of care, patient population demographics and use of emergency care for the financial years 2009/10 to 2012/13. The main outcome measures were self-referred discharged ED attendance rate, and combined self-referred discharged ED, self-referred Walk-in Centre (WiC) and self-referred Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) attendance rate per 1000 patients. Multilevel models estimated adjusted regression coefficients for relationships between patients' emergency attendance rates and patients' reported satisfaction with opening hours and waiting time at the practice, proportion of patients having a preferred GP, and use of WiC and MIU, both between practices, and within practices over time.Results: Practice characteristics associated with higher ED attendance rates included lower percentage of patients satisfied with waiting time (0.22 per 1% decrease, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.43) and lower percentage having a preferred GP (0.12 per 1% decrease, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.21). Population influences on higher attendance included more elderly, more female and more unemployed patients, and lower male life-expectancy and urban conurbation location. Net reductions in ED attendance were only seen for practices whose WiC or MIU attendance was high, above the 60th centile for MIU and above the 75th centile for WiC. Combined emergency care attendance fell over time if more patients within a practice were satisfied with opening hours (-0.26 per 1% increase, 95%CI -0.45 to -0.08).Conclusion: Practices with more patients satisfied with waiting time, having a preferred GP, and using MIU and WIC services, had lower ED attendance. Increases over time in attendance at MIUs, and patient satisfaction with opening hours was associated with reductions in service use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To review the evidence on commissioning schemes involving clinicians in the United Kingdom National Health Service, between 1991 and 2010; report on the extent and impact of clinical engagement; and distil lessons for the development of such schemes both in the UK and elsewhere. Methods A review of published evidence. Five hundred and fourteen abstracts were obtained from structured searches and screened. Full-text papers were retrieved for UK empirical studies exploring the relationship between commissioners and providers with clinician involvement. Two hundred and eighteen published materials were reviewed. Results The extent of clinical engagement varied between the various schemes. Schemes allowing clinicians to act autonomously were more likely to generate significant engagement, with ‘virtuous cycles’ (experience of being able to make changes feeding back to encourage greater engagement) and ‘vicious cycles’ (failure to influence services generating disengagement) observed. Engagement of the wider general practitioner (GP) membership was an important determinant of success. Most impact was seen in GP prescribing and the establishment of services in general practices. There was little evidence of GPs engaging more widely with public health issues. Conclusion Evidence for a significant impact of clinical engagement on commissioning outcomes is limited. Initial changes are likely to be small scale and to focus on services in primary care. Engagement of GP members of primary care commissioning organizations is an important determinant of progress, but generates significant transaction costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An ageing population with multimorbidity is putting pressure on health systems. A popular method of managing this pressure is identification of patients in primary care ‘at-risk’ of hospitalisation, and delivering case management to improve outcomes and avoid admissions. However, the effectiveness of this model has not been subjected to rigorous quantitative synthesis. Methods and Findings: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of case management for ‘at-risk’ patients in primary care. Six bibliographic databases were searched using terms for ‘case management’, ‘primary care’, and a methodology filter (Cochrane EPOC group). Effectiveness compared to usual care was measured across a number of relevant outcomes: Health – self-assessed health status, mortality; Cost – total cost of care, healthcare utilisation (primary and non-specialist care and secondary care separately), and; Satisfaction – patient satisfaction. We conducted secondary subgroup analyses to assess whether effectiveness was moderated by the particular model of case management, context, and study design. A total of 15,327 titles and abstracts were screened, 36 unique studies were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in total cost, mortality, utilisation of primary or secondary care. A very small significant effect favouring case management was found for self-reported health status in the short-term (0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14). A small significant effect favouring case management was found for patient satisfaction in the short- (0.26, 0.16 to 0.36) and long-term (0.35, 0.04 to 0.66). Secondary subgroup analyses suggested the effectiveness of case management may be increased when delivered by a multidisciplinary team, when a social worker was involved, and when delivered in a setting rated as low in initial ‘strength’ of primary care. Conclusions: This was the first meta-analytic review which examined the effects of case management on a wide range of outcomes and considered also the effects of key moderators. Current results do not support case management as an effective model, especially concerning reduction of secondary care use or total costs. We consider reasons for lack of effect and highlight key research questions for the future. Review Protocol: The review protocol is available as part of the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42014010824). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health has had a history characterised by uncertainty of purpose, locus of control, and workforce identity. In many health systems, the public health function is fragmented, isolated and under-resourced. We use the most recent major reforms to the English National Health Service and local government, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA12), as a lens through which to explore the changing nature of public health professionalism.Methods: This paper is based upon a 3-year longitudinal study into the impacts of the HSCA12 upon the commissioning system in England, in which we conducted 141 interviews with 118 commissioners and senior staff from a variety of health service commissioner and provider organisations, local government, and the third sector. For the present paper, we developed a subset of data relevant to public health, and analysed it using a framework derived from the literature on public health professionalism, exploring themes identified from relevant policy documents and research.Results: The move of public health responsibilities into local government introduced an element of politicisation which challenged public health professional autonomy. There were mixed feelings about the status of public health as a specialist profession. The creation of a national public health organisation helped raise the profile of profession, but there were concerns about clarity of responsibilities, accountability, and upholding 'pure' public health professional values. There was confusion about the remit of other organisations in relation to public health.Conclusions: Where public health professionals sit in a health system in absolute terms is less important than their ability to develop relationships, negotiate their roles, and provide expert public health influence across that system. A conflation between 'population health' and 'public health' fosters unrealistic expectations of the profession. Public health may be best placed to provide leadership for other stakeholders and professional groups working towards improving health outcomes of their defined populations, but there remains a need to clarify the role(s) that public health as a specialist profession has to play in helping to fulfil population health goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]