Dataset Information

Achieving integrated care through commissioning of primary care services in the English NHS: a qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: McDermott I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500348 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Achieving integrated care through commissioning of primary care services in the English NHS: a qualitative analysis.

McDermott Imelda I Checkland Kath K Moran Valerie V Warwick-Giles Lynsey L

BMJ open 20190401 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>We undertook an exploratory approach, combining data from interviews and national telephone surveys, with analysis of policy documents and case st ...[more]

PMID: 30940765

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectiveIntegrated Care Systems (ICSs) mark a change in the English National Health Service to more collaborative interorganisational working. We explored how effective the ICS form of collaboration is in achieving its goals by investigating how ICSs were developing, how system partners were balancing organisational and system responsibilities, how partners could be held to account and how local priorities were being reconciled with ICS priorities.DesignWe carried out detailed case studies in three ICSs, each consisting of a system and its partners, using interviews, documentary analysis and meeting observations.Setting/participantsWe conducted 64 in-depth, semistructured interviews with director-level representatives of ICS partners and observed eight meetings (three in case study 1, three in case study 2 and two in case study 3).ResultsCollaborative working was welcomed by system members. The agreement of local governance arrangements was ongoing and challenging. System members found it difficult to balance system and individual responsibilities, with concerns that system priorities could run counter to organisational interests. Conflicts of interest were seen as inherent, but the benefits of collaborative decision-making were perceived to outweigh risks. There were multiple examples of work being carried out across systems and 'places' to share resources, change resource allocation and improve partnership working. Some interviewees reported reticence addressing difficult issues collaboratively, and that organisations' statutory accountabilities were allowing a 'retreat' from the confrontation of difficult issues facing systems, such as agreeing action to achieve financial sustainability.ConclusionsThere remain significant challenges regarding agreeing governance, accountability and decision-making arrangements which are particularly important due to the recent Health and Care Act 2022 which gave ICSs allocative functions for the majority of health resources for local populations. An arbiter who is independent of the ICS may be required to resolve disputes, along with increased support for shaping governance arrangements.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to tackle the considerable treatment gap for epilepsy in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), a task sharing model is recommended whereby care is integrated into primary health services. However, there are limited data on implementation and impact of such services in LMICs. Our study aimed to explore the perspectives of service users and caregivers on the accessibility, experience and perceived impact of epilepsy treatment received in a task-shared model in a rural district of Ethiopia.MethodsA qualitative study was carried out using interviews with purposively sampled service users (n = 13) and caregivers (n = 3) from a community-ascertained cohort of people with epilepsy receiving integrated services in primary care in rural Ethiopia. Interviews followed a topic guide with questions regarding acceptability, satisfaction, barriers to access care, pathways through care and impact of services. Framework analysis was employed to analyse the data.ResultsProximity of the new service in local primary health centers decreased the cost of transportation for the majority of service users thus improving access to services. First-hand experience of services was in some cases associated with a willingness to promote the services and inform others of the existence of effective biomedical treatment for epilepsy. However, most service users and their caregivers continued to seek help from traditional healers alongside biomedical care. Most of the care received was focused on medication provision with limited information provided on how to manage their illness and its effects. Caregivers and service users spoke about the high emotional and financial burden of the disease and lack of ongoing practical and emotional support. The majority of participants reported clinical improvement on medication, which in over half of the participants was associated with ability to return to money generating activities.ConclusionsTask-sharing improved the accessibility of epilepsy care for services users and caregivers and was perceived as having a positive impact on symptoms and productivity. Nonetheless, promotion of self-management, holistic care and family engagement were highlighted as areas requiring further improvement. Future work on implementing chronic care models in LMIC contexts is warranted.

Project description: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. Cross-sectional survey of 345 National Health Service (NHS) staff members. The study was conducted across 11 English Primary Care Trusts between 2010 and 2011. 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. 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. 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). 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.

Project description:ObjectivesThis feasibility study aimed to model in silico the current healthcare system for patients triaged to a primary care disposition following a call to National Health Service (NHS) 111 and determine the effect of reconfiguring the healthcare system to ensure a timely primary care service contact.DesignDiscrete event simulation.SettingSingle English NHS 111 call centre in Yorkshire.ParticipantsCallers registered with a Bradford general practitioner who contacted the NHS 111 service in 2021 and were triaged to a primary care disposition.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFace validity of conceptual model. Comparison between real and simulated data for quarterly counts (and 95% CIs) for patient contact with emergency ambulance (999), 111, and primary and secondary care services. Mean difference and 95% CIs in healthcare system usage between simulations and difference in mean proportion of avoidable admissions for callers who presented to an emergency department (ED).ResultsThe simulation of the current system estimated that there would be 39 283 (95% CI 39 237 to 39 328) primary care contacts, 2042 (95% CI 2032 to 2051) 999 calls and 1120 (95% CI 1114 to 1127) avoidable ED attendances. Modifying the model to ensure a timely primary care response resulted in a mean percentage increase of 196.1% (95% CI 192.2% to 199.9%) in primary care contacts, and a mean percentage decrease of 78.0% (95% CI 69.8% to 86.2%) in 999 calls and 88.1% (95% CI 81.7% to 94.5%) in ED attendances. Avoidable ED attendances reduced by a mean of -26 (95% CI -35 to -17).ConclusionIn this simulated study, ensuring timely contact with a primary care service would lead to a significant reduction in 999 and 111 calls, and ED attendances (although not avoidable ED attendance). However, this is likely to be impractical given the need to almost double current primary care service provision. Further economic and qualitative research is needed to determine whether this intervention would be cost-effective and acceptable to both patients and primary care clinicians.

Dataset Information

Achieving integrated care through commissioning of primary care services in the English NHS: a qualitative analysis.

Publications

Achieving integrated care through commissioning of primary care services in the English NHS: a qualitative analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets