Dataset Information

Supporting survivors of sexual violence: protocol for a mixed-methods, co-research study of the role, funding and commissioning of specialist services provided by the voluntary sector in England.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The voluntary sector provides a range of specialist services to survivors of sexual violence, many of which have evolved from grass roots organisations responding to unmet local needs. However, the evidence base is poor in terms of what services are provided to which groups of survivors, how voluntary sector specialist (VSS) services are organised and delivered and how they are commissioned. This will be the first national study on the role of the voluntary sector in supporting survivors in England. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study uses an explanatory sequential naturalistic mixed-methods design with two stages. For stage 1, two national surveys of providers' and commissioners' views on designing and delivering VSS services will facilitate detailed mapping of service provision and commissioning in order to create a taxonomy of VSS services. Variations in the national picture will then be explored in stage 2 through four in-depth, qualitative case studies using the critical incident technique to explain the observed variations and understand the key contextual factors which influence service provision. Drawing on theory about the distinctive service contribution of the voluntary sector, survivors will be involved as co-researchers and will play a central role in data collection and interpretation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Birmingham research ethics committee for stage 1 of the project. In line with the sequential and co-produced study design, further applications for ethical review will be made in due course. Dissemination activities will include case study and end-of-project workshops; good practice guides; a policy briefing; project report; bitesize findings; webinars; academic articles and conference presentations. The project will generate evidence about what survivors want from and value about services and new understanding about how VSS services should be commissioned and provided to support survivors to thrive in the long term.

SUBMITTER: Combes G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6937104 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting survivors of sexual violence: protocol for a mixed-methods, co-research study of the role, funding and commissioning of specialist services provided by the voluntary sector in England.

Combes Gill G Damery Sarah S Gunby Clare C Harlock Jenny J Isham Louise L Jones Alice A Maxted Fay F Parmar Priti P Schaub Jason J Smith Deb D Taylor Julie J Bradbury-Jones Caroline C

BMJ open 20191217 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>The voluntary sector provides a range of specialist services to survivors of sexual violence, many of which have evolved from grass roots organisations responding to unmet local needs. However, the evidence base is poor in terms of what services are provided to which groups of survivors, how voluntary sector specialist (VSS) services are organised and delivered and how they are commissioned. This will be the first national study on the role of the voluntary sector in support ...[more]

PMID: 31852714

Similar Datasets

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: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: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:Background: Kenya has made a policy decision to use contributory health insurance as one of its key pre-payment health financing mechanisms. The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) is the main health insurer in Kenya. While the NHIF has hitherto focused its efforts on providing health insurance coverage to individuals in the formal sector, it has recently broadened its focus to include individuals in the informal sector. This paper provides an analysis of the perceptions, and experiences of informal sector individuals in Kenya with regard to enrolment with the NHIF. Methods: We collected data through key informant interviews (39) in two purposefully selected counties. Study participants were drawn from healthcare facilities contracted by the NHIF, and current, former, and prospective informal sector members. We analyzed data using a grounded approach. Results: Participants felt that the NHIF provided inadequate information about the registration and membership processes as well as benefit entitlements. There was variable and inconsistent communication by the NHIF. There was also variance between the official benefit package and the actual benefits received by members. The NHIF registration requirements and processes presented an administrative barrier to obtaining membership. The NHIF premium level and contribution mechanism presents a financial barrier to current and prospective members. Healthcare providers discriminated against NHIF members compared to cash-payers or private insurance holders. Conclusions: The NHIF could improve enrolment and retention of informal sector individuals by; 1) using communication strategies that are effective at reaching the informal sector, 2) improving the affordability of the premium rates, 3) simplifying the enrolment requirements and process, and 4) strengthening accountability mechanisms between itself and healthcare facilities to ensure that enrolled members receive the benefits that they are entitled to, and that client experience at healthcare facilities are satisfactory.

Dataset Information

Supporting survivors of sexual violence: protocol for a mixed-methods, co-research study of the role, funding and commissioning of specialist services provided by the voluntary sector in England.

Publications

Supporting survivors of sexual violence: protocol for a mixed-methods, co-research study of the role, funding and commissioning of specialist services provided by the voluntary sector in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets