Dataset Information

What antimicrobial stewardship strategies do NHS commissioning organizations implement in primary care in England?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify and explore strategies that English NHS commissioning organizations implemented to improve antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) within primary care.

Methods

Questionnaire sent to the medicines management teams (MMTs) of all 209 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England, in 2017.

Results

A total of 89% (187/209) of all English CCGs responded to the questionnaire; 74% of responding CCGs (123/167) had a prescribing incentive/engagement scheme, with MMTs representing 88% (90/102) considering incentive schemes successful or very successful for prioritizing AMS in primary care, especially when linked to prescribing NHS Quality Premium indicators. AMS audits were considered successful or very successful by 91% (126/138) of responding CCGs, as they identify reasons for inappropriate prescribing and opportunities for future improvement. All responding MMTs (169/169 CCGs) reported feeding back local/national antimicrobial prescribing data to the general practices they commission, 85% (142/168) to their CCG/Commissioning Support Unit (CSU) board and only 33% (56/169) to out-of-hours services. Benchmarking prescribing data was reported as a powerful tool to engage practices, facilitating an element of competition and peer pressure.

Conclusions

National antimicrobial resistance improvement schemes, in particular the NHS England Quality Premium, have influenced CCG improvement priorities. Most CCGs now report successful improvement strategies including the use of both local and national antibiotic prescribing data to motivate improvements; these should be continued and extended to out-of-hours providers. As local audit data have helped to identify reasons for inappropriate prescribing and inform improvement planning, all organizations should adopt this strategy and include it in local quality improvement schemes, ensuring performance reporting to organizational board level.

SUBMITTER: Allison R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8210272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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: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: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.

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:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is an emerging problem worldwide and poses a significant threat to human health. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are being implemented in health systems globally, primarily in hospitals, to address the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance. Despite the significance of primary health care services in providing health care to communities, antimicrobial stewardship programmes are not well established in this sector, especially in rural and remote settings. This narrative review aims to identify in rural and remote primary health care settings the (1) correlation of antimicrobial resistance with antibiotic prescribing and volume of antibiotic use, (2) appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, (3) risk factors associated with inappropriate use/prescribing of antibiotics, and (4) effective antimicrobial stewardship strategies.MethodsThe international literature was searched for English only articles between 2000 and 2020 using specified keywords. Seven electronic databases were searched: Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, Ovid Medline and Ovid Emcare. Publication screening and analysis were conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review tools.ResultsFifty-one eligible articles were identified. Inappropriate and excessive antimicrobial prescribing and use directly led to increases in antimicrobial resistance. Increasing rurality of practice is associated with disproportionally higher rates of inappropriate prescribing compared to those in metropolitan areas. Physician knowledge, attitude and behaviour play important roles in mediating antimicrobial prescribing, with strong intrinsic and extrinsic influences including patient factors. Antimicrobial stewardship strategies in rural and remote primary health care settings focus on health care provider and patient education, clinician support systems, utility of antimicrobial resistance surveillance, and policy changes. Results of these interventions were generally positive with decreased antimicrobial resistance rates and improved appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.ConclusionsInappropriate prescribing and excessive use of antimicrobials are an important contributor to the increasing resistance towards antimicrobial agents particularly in rural and remote primary health care. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes in the form of education, clinical support, surveillance, and policies have been mostly successful in reducing prescribing rates and inappropriate prescriptions. The narrative review highlighted the need for longer interventions to assess changes in antimicrobial resistance rates. The review also identified a lack of differentiation between rural and remote contexts and Indigenous health was inadequately addressed. Future research should have a greater focus on effective interventional components and patient perspectives.

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.