Dataset Information

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT: From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs).We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.

SUBMITTER: Moran V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695513 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

Moran Valerie V Allen Pauline P McDermott Imelda I Checkland Kath K Warwick-Giles Lynsey L Gore Oz O Bramwell Donna D Coleman Anna A

BMJ open 20171108 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.<h4>Design</h4>We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data usin ...[more]

PMID: 29122801

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo explore the relational challenges for general practitioner (GP) leaders setting up new network-centric commissioning organisations in the recent health policy reform in England, we use innovation network theory to identify key network leadership practices that facilitate healthcare innovation.DesignMixed-method, multisite and case study research.SettingSix clinical commissioning groups and local clusters in the East of England area, covering in total 208 GPs and 1 662 000 population.MethodsSemistructured interviews with 56 lead GPs, practice managers and staff from the local health authorities (primary care trusts, PCT) as well as various healthcare professionals; 21 observations of clinical commissioning group (CCG) board and executive meetings; electronic survey of 58 CCG board members (these included GPs, practice managers, PCT employees, nurses and patient representatives) and subsequent social network analysis.Main outcome measuresCollaborative relationships between CCG board members and stakeholders from their healthcare network; clarifying the role of GPs as network leaders; strengths and areas for development of CCGs.ResultsDrawing upon innovation network theory provides unique insights of the CCG leaders' activities in establishing best practices and introducing new clinical pathways. In this context we identified three network leadership roles: managing knowledge flows, managing network coherence and managing network stability. Knowledge sharing and effective collaboration among GPs enable network stability and the alignment of CCG objectives with those of the wider health system (network coherence). Even though activities varied between commissioning groups, collaborative initiatives were common. However, there was significant variation among CCGs around the level of engagement with providers, patients and local authorities. Locality (sub) groups played an important role because they linked commissioning decisions with patient needs and brought the leaders closer to frontline stakeholders.ConclusionsWith the new commissioning arrangements, the leaders should seek to move away from dyadic and transactional relationships to a network structure, thereby emphasising on the emerging relational focus of their roles. Managing knowledge mobility, healthcare network coherence and network stability are the three clinical leadership processes that CCG leaders need to consider in coordinating their network and facilitating the development of good clinical commissioning decisions, best practices and innovative services. To successfully manage these processes, CCG leaders need to leverage the relational capabilities of their network as well as their clinical expertise to establish appropriate collaborations that may improve the healthcare services in England. Lack of local GP engagement adds uncertainty to the system and increases the risk of commissioning decisions being irrelevant and inefficient from patient and provider perspectives.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally.DesignQualitative interview study.ParticipantsTrial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expertise. Researchers differed by geographical location, educational background, and experience with different types of funders. Interviewees were identified by searches on Web of Science and snowball sampling. 52 trial researchers were approached by email; 20 agreed to be interviewed.SettingInterviews conducted by telephone, recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported to NVivo 12, and analysed by systematic text condensation. Semistructured interviews focused on financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.ResultsThe interviewees had participated in a median of 37.5 trials and were mainly male physicians who had experience with commercial and non-commercial trial funders. Two predefined themes (influence of conflicts of interest and management strategies) and two additional themes (definition and reporting of conflicts of interest) emerged. Examples of perceived influence of conflicts of interest were: choice of inferior comparator, manipulation of the randomisation process, prematurely stopping the trials, fabrication of data, blocking access to data, and spin (eg, overly favourable interpretation of the results). Examples of strategies to manage conflicts of interest were: disclosure procedures, exclusion of the funder from design and analysis, independent committees, contracts ensuring complete access to the data, and no restriction by the funder on analysis and reporting. Interviewees used different definitions or thresholds for what they considered to be conflicts of interest, and they described different criteria for when to report them. Some interviewees considered non-commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding of trials by governmental health agencies with a political agenda) to be equally or more important than commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding by drug and device companies), but more challenging to report and manage.ConclusionThis study described how trial researchers perceive conflicts of interest unduly influencing clinical trials they had worked on, and the management strategies they used to prevent these influences. The results indicated considerable variability in researchers' understanding of what conflicts of interest are and when they should be reported.

Project description:UnlabelledConflicts of interest (COIs) in research have received increasing attention, but many questions arise about how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) view and approach these.MethodsI conducted in-depth interviews of 2 hours each with 46 US IRB chairs, administrators, and members, exploring COI and other issues related to research integrity. I contacted leaders of 60 IRBs (every fourth one among the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%). Data were analyzed using standard qualitative methods, informed by Grounded Theory.ResultsIRBs confront financial and non-financial COIs of PIs, institutions, and IRBs themselves. IRB members may seek to help, or compete with, principal investigators (PIs). Non-financial COI also often appear to be "indirect financial" conflicts based on gain (or loss) not to oneself, but to one's colleagues or larger institution. IRBs faced challenges identifying and managing these COI, and often felt that they could be more effective. IRBs' management of their own potential COI vary, and conflicted members may observe, participate, and/or vote in discussions. Individual IRB members frequently judge for themselves whether to recuse themselves. Challenges arise in addressing these issues, since institutions and PIs need funding, financial information is considered confidential, and COI can be unconscious.ConclusionsThis study, the first to explore qualitatively how IRBs confront COIs and probe how IRBs confront non-financial COIs, suggests that IRBs face several types of financial and non-financial COIs, involving themselves, PIs, and institutions, and respond varyingly. These data have critical implications for practice and policy. Disclosure of indirect and non-financial COIs to subjects may not be feasible, partly since IRBs, not PIs, are conflicted. Needs exist to consider guidelines and clarifications concerning when and how, in protocol reviews, IRB members should recuse themselves from participating, observing, and/or voting.

Dataset Information

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

Publications

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets