Dataset Information

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate types of evidence used by healthcare commissioners when making decisions and whether decisions were influenced by commissioners' experience, personal characteristics or role at work.

Design

Cross-sectional survey of 345 National Health Service (NHS) staff members.

Setting

The study was conducted across 11 English Primary Care Trusts between 2010 and 2011.

Participants

A total of 440 staff involved in commissioning decisions and employed at NHS band 7 or above were invited to participate in the study. Of those, 345 (78%) completed all or a part of the survey.

Main outcome measures

Participants were asked to rate how important different sources of evidence (empirical or practical) were in a recent decision that had been made. Backwards stepwise logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the contributions of age, gender and professional background, as well as the years of experience in NHS commissioning, pay grade and work role.

Results

The extent to which empirical evidence was used for commissioning decisions in the NHS varied according to the professional background. Only 50% of respondents stated that clinical guidelines and cost-effectiveness evidence were important for healthcare decisions. Respondents were more likely to report use of empirical evidence if they worked in Public Health in comparison to other departments (p<0.0005, commissioning and contracts OR? ?0.32, 95%CI? ?0.18 to 0.57, finance OR ?0.19, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.78, other departments OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.71) or if they were female (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.01 to 3.1) rather than male. Respondents were more likely to report use of practical evidence if they were more senior within the organisation (pay grade 8b or higher OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.4 to 5.3, p=0.004 in comparison to lower pay grades).

Conclusions

Those trained in Public Health appeared more likely to use external empirical evidence while those at higher pay scales were more likely to use practical evidence when making commissioning decisions. Clearly, National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance and government publications (eg, National Service Frameworks) are important for decision-making, but practical sources of evidence such as local intelligence, benchmarking data and expert advice are also influential. New Clinical Commissioning Groups will need a variety of different evidence sources and expert involvement to ensure that effective decisions are made for their populations.

SUBMITTER: Clarke A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3657651 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.

Clarke Aileen A Taylor-Phillips Sian S Swan Jacky J Gkeredakis Emmanouil E Mills Penny P Powell John J Nicolini Davide D Roginski Claudia C Scarbrough Harry H Grove Amy A

BMJ open 20130528 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate types of evidence used by healthcare commissioners when making decisions and whether decisions were influenced by commissioners' experience, personal characteristics or role at work.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional survey of 345 National Health Service (NHS) staff members.<h4>Setting</h4>The study was conducted across 11 English Primary Care Trusts between 2010 and 2011.<h4>Participants</h4>A total of 440 staff involved in commissioning decisions and employed at N ...[more]

PMID: 23793669

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Since April 2015, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have taken on the responsibility to commission primary care services. The aim of this paper is to analyse how CCGs have responded to this new responsibility and to identify challenges and factors that facilitated or inhibited achievement of integrated care systems. DESIGN:We undertook an exploratory approach, combining data from interviews and national telephone surveys, with analysis of policy documents and case studies in four CCGs. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:We reviewed 147 CCG application documents and conducted two national telephone surveys with CCGs (n=49?and n=21). We interviewed 6 senior policymakers and 42 CCG staff who were involved in primary care co-commissioning (general practitioners and managers). We observed 74 primary care commissioning committee meetings and their subgroups (approx. 111?hours). RESULTS:CCGs in our case studies focused their primary care commissioning activities on developing strategic plans, 'new' primary care initiatives, and dealing with legacy work. Many plans focused on incentivising and supporting practices to work together and provide a broad range of services. There was a clear focus on ensuring the sustainability of general practice. Our respondents expressed mixed views as to what new collaborative service models, such as the new models of care and sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs), would mean for the future of primary care and the impact they could have on CCGs and their members. CONCLUSIONS:There is a disconnect between locally based primary care and the wider system. One of the major challenges we identified is the lack of knowledge and expertise in the field of primary care at STP level. While primary care commissioning by CCGs seems to be supporting local collaborations between practices, there is some way to go before this is translated into broader integration initiatives across wider footprints.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the work of commissioning care for people with long-term conditions and the factors inhibiting or facilitating commissioners making service change.DesignMultisite mixed methods case study research, combining qualitative analysis of interviews, documents and observation of meetings.ParticipantsPrimary care trust managers and clinicians, general practice-based commissioners, National Health Service trust and foundation trust senior managers and clinicians, voluntary sector and local government representatives.SettingThree 'commissioning communities' (areas covered by a primary care trust) in England, 2010-2012.ResultsCommissioning services for people with long-term conditions was a long drawn-out process involving a range of activities and partners. Only some of the activities undertaken by commissioners, such as assessment of local health needs, coordination of healthcare planning and service specification, appeared in the official 'commissioning cycle' promoted by the Department of Health. Commissioners undertook a significant range of additional activities focused on reviewing and redesigning services and providing support for implementation of new services. These activities often involved partnership working with providers and other stakeholders and appeared to be largely divorced from contracting and financial negotiations. At least for long-term condition services, the time and effort involved in such work appeared to be disproportionate to the anticipated or likely service gains. Commissioners adopting an incremental approach to service change in defined and manageable areas of work appeared to be more successful in terms of delivering planned changes in service delivery than those attempting to bring about wide-scale change across complex systems.ConclusionsCommissioning for long-term condition services challenges the conventional distinction between commissioners and providers with a significant amount of work focused on redesigning services in partnership with providers. Such work is labour-intensive and potentially unsustainable at a time of reduced finances. New clinical commissioning groups will need to determine how best to balance the relational and transactional elements of commissioning.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The 2010 healthcare reform in England introduced primary care-led commissioning in the National Health Service (NHS) by establishing clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). A key factor for the success of the reform is the provision of excellent commissioning support services to CCGs. The Government's aim is to create a vibrant market of competing providers of such services (from both for-profit and not-for-profit sectors). Until this market develops, however, commissioning support units (CSUs) have been created from which CCGs are buying commissioning support functions. This study explored the attitudes of CCGs towards outsourcing commissioning support functions during the initial stage of the reform. DESIGN:The research took place between September 2011 and June 2012. We used a case study research design in eight CCGs, conducting in-depth interviews, observation of meetings and analysis of policy documents. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:We conducted 96 interviews and observed 146 meetings (a total of approximately 439?h). RESULTS:Many CCGs were reluctant to outsource core commissioning support functions (such as contracting) for fear of losing local knowledge and trusted relationships. Others were disappointed by the absence of choice and saw CSUs as monopolies and a recreation of the abolished PCTs. Many expressed doubts about the expectation that outsourcing of commissioning support functions will result in lower administrative costs. CONCLUSIONS:Given the nature of healthcare commissioning, outsourcing vital commissioning support functions may not be the preferred option of CCGs. Considerations of high transaction costs, and the risk of fragmentation of services and loss of trusted relationships involved in short-term contracting, may lead most CCGs to decide to form long-term partnerships with commissioning support suppliers in the future. This option, however, limits competition by creating 'network closure' and calls into question the Government's intention to create a vibrant market of commissioning support provision.

Project description:Systems and processes for prescribing, supplying and administering inpatient medications can have substantial impact on medication administration errors (MAEs). However, little is known about the medication systems and processes currently used within the English National Health Service (NHS). This presents a challenge for developing NHS-wide interventions to increase medication safety. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional postal census of medication systems and processes in English NHS hospitals to address this knowledge gap.The chief pharmacist at each of all 165 acute NHS trusts was invited to complete a questionnaire for medical and surgical wards in their main hospital (July 2011). We report here the findings relating to medication systems and processes, based on 18 closed questions plus one open question about local medication safety initiatives. Non-respondents were posted another questionnaire (August 2011), and then emailed (October 2011).One hundred (61% of NHS trusts) questionnaires were returned. Most hospitals used paper-based prescribing on the majority of medical and surgical inpatient wards (87% of hospitals), patient bedside medication lockers (92%), patients' own drugs (89%) and 'one-stop dispensing' medication labelled with administration instructions for use at discharge as well as during the inpatient stay (85%). Less prevalent were the use of ward pharmacy technicians (62% of hospitals) or pharmacists (58%) to order medications on the majority of wards. Only 65% of hospitals used drug trolleys; 50% used patient-specific inpatient supplies on the majority of wards. Only one hospital had a pharmacy open 24 hours, but all had access to an on-call pharmacist. None reported use of unit-dose dispensing; 7% used an electronic drug cabinet in some ward areas. Overall, 85% of hospitals had a double-checking policy for intravenous medication and 58% for other specified drugs. "Do not disturb" tabards/overalls were routinely used during nurses' drug rounds on at least one ward in 59% of hospitals.Inter- and intra-hospital variations in medication systems and processes exist, even within the English NHS; future research should focus on investigating their potential effects on nurses' workflow and MAEs, and developing NHS-wide interventions to reduce MAEs.

Project description:BackgroundTo improve health outcomes and address mounting costs pressures, policy-makers have encouraged primary care commissioners in the British National Health Service (NHS) to increase the usage of data in decision-making. However, there exists limited research on this topic. In this study, we aimed to understand how and why primary care commissioners use data (i.e. quantitative, statistical information) to inform commissioning, and what outcomes this leads to.MethodsA realist evaluation was completed to create context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs) relating to the contexts influencing the usage of data in primary care commissioning. Using a realist logic of analysis and drawing on substantive theories, we analysed qualitative content from 30 interviews and 51 meetings (51 recordings and 19 accompanying meeting minutes) to develop CMOs. Purposive sampling was used to recruit interviewees from diverse backgrounds.ResultsThirty-five CMOs were formed, resulting in an overarching realist programme theory. Thirteen CMOs were identical and 3 were truncated versions of those formed in an existing realist synthesis on the same topic. Seven entirely new CMOs, and 12 refined and enhanced CMOs vis-à-vis the synthesis were created. The findings included CMOs containing contexts which facilitated the usage of data, including the presence of a data champion and commissioners' perceptions that external providers offered new skillsets and types of data. Other CMOs included contexts presenting barriers to using data, such as data not being presented in an interoperable way with consistent definitions, or financial pressures inhibiting commissioners' abilities to make evidence-based decisions.ConclusionsCommissioners are enthusiastic about using data as a source of information, a tool to stimulate improvements, and a warrant for decision-making. However, they also face considerable challenges when using them. There are replicable contexts available to facilitate commissioners' usage of data, which we used to inform policy recommendations. The findings of this study and our recommendations are pertinent in light of governments' increasing commitment to data-driven commissioning and health policy-making.

Dataset Information

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets