Search

In an attempt to support care integration that promotes joined up service provision and patient‐centred care across care boundaries, local health and social care organisations have embarked on several initiatives and approaches. A key component of service integration is the co‐location of different professional groups. In this study, we consider the extent to which co‐location is an enabler for service integration by examining multi‐professional community care teams. The study presents findings from a qualitative evaluation of integrated care initiatives in a borough of East London, England, undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The evaluation employed a participatory approach, the Researcher‐in‐Residence model. Participant observation (n = 80 hr) and both semi‐structured individual (n = 16) and group interviews (six groups, n = 17 participants) were carried out. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. The findings show that co‐location can be an effective enabler for service integration providing a basis for joint working, fostering improved communication and information sharing if conditions such as shared information systems and professional cultures (shared beliefs and values) are met. Organisations must consider the potential barriers to service integration such as differing professional identity, limited understanding of roles and responsibilities and a lack of continuity in personnel. Co‐location remains an important facet in the development of multi‐professional teams and local service integration arrangements, but as yet, has not been widely acknowledged as a priority in care practice. Organisations that are committed to greying care boundaries and providing joined up patient care must ensure that sufficient focus is provided at the service delivery level and not assume that decades of silo working in health and social care and strong professional cultures will be resolved by co‐location. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to the literature on ethics in Participatory Research by looking at the Researcher-in-Residence model and its application within health services research in three East London boroughs. The Researcher-in-Residence is embedded in the organisation to enable knowledge mobilisation and knowledge coproduction. Whereas negotiation of different types of expertise to coproduce evidence might raise issues of power differentials, the embedded nature of the role also requires careful negotiating of relationships. As the researcher is immersed in the context under evaluation, the boundaries between the researcher and the participants' everyday working life can become blurred. The paper explores these ethical issues and suggests that, whereas the requirements of ethics committees, based on an ethics of principle, at times fail to offer appropriate guidelines for this methodological approach, an ethics of care based on relationships can offer a complementary framework to address some of the thorny challenges that emerge from everyday practice in participatory research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A growing proportion of older people live in care homes and are at high risk of preventable harm. This study describes a participatory qualitative evaluation of a complex safety improvement intervention, comprising training, performance measurement and culture-change elements, on the safety of care provided for residents.Design: A participatory qualitative study.Setting: Ninety care homes in one geographical locality in southern England.Participants: A purposeful sample of care home managers, front-line staff, residents, quality improvement facilitators and trainers, local government and health service commissioners, and an embedded researcher.Main Outcome Measures: Changes in care home culture and work processes, assessed using documentary analysis, interviews, observations and surveys and analysed using a framework-based thematic approach.Results: Participation in the programme appears to have led to changes in the value that staff place on resident safety and to changes in their working practices, in particular in relation to their desire to proactively manage resident risk and their willingness to use data to examine established practice. The results suggest that there is a high level of commitment among care home staff to address the problem of preventable harm. Mobilisation of this commitment appears to benefit from external facilitation and the introduction of new methods and tools.Conclusions: An evidence-based approach to reducing preventable harm in care homes, comprising an intervention with both technical and social components, can lead to changes in staff priorities and practices which have the potential to improve outcomes for people who live in care homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing more information for the public about the range and quality of health services is an important part of improving accountability, quality and public responsiveness. Most sources of information to date have failed to address the information needs of people about their local services. The launch in England in 2002 of a new publication,Guides to Local Health Services, was designed to address this deficiency. We conducted an audit of the firstGuides, and surveyed those responsible for their production, in order to examine theGuides’ development, content, presentation and dissemination, and to critique the purpose of the initiative.A semi-structured questionnaire survey of those responsible for producing theGuides, and an audit of theGuidesproduced by Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).Most PCTs complied with central guidance about structure and content, but in meeting multiple requirements theGuideslost their clarity of purpose. The content was dominated by information relating to financial and strategic accountability. In producing theGuides, external consultation was limited, particularly with the public but also with local partnership providers of health and social care. The main issues were the lack of a clear focus forGuideinformation, the level of central direction, the short production lead times, difficulties with distribution, and the many competing demands being made on PCT resources.Guidecontent should be clearly focused on information that the public wants. Greater responsibility should be devolved to front line PCT staff to determine content in consultation with local users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In England, the quality of clinical work is being regulated in new ways following recent developments in “clinical governance” policy and apparent failures in the previous system of medical self-regulation. Using multiple case studies, this paper examines how these changes are affecting professional governmentality and discipline in general practice. Formal organizational structures play little role in clinical governance there. Clinical quality is managed largely through semi-formal networks, relying on medical self-surveillance. Compliance is achieved largely by discursive appeals to the legitimacy of clinical governance, but local GPs’ leaders also argue that governments might otherwise regulate medical practice more actively. As yet the effects of clinical governance activity on service delivery are slight. Professional self-regulation is replacing permissive exception management with more collegial, directive methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To investigate the involvement of users in clinical governance activities within Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Trusts (PCTs). Drawing on policy and guidance published since 1997, the paper sets out a framework for how users are involved in this agenda, evaluates practice against this standard and suggests why current practice for user involvement in clinical governance is flawed and why this reflects a flaw in the policy design as much as its implementation. Design Qualitative data comprising semi-structured interviews, reviews of documentary evidence and relevant literature. Setting Twelve PCGs/PCTs in England purposively selected to provide variation in size, rurality and group or trust status. Participants Key stakeholders including Lay Board members (n =12), Chief Executives (CEs) (n = 12), Clinical Governance Leads (CG leads) (n = 14), Mental Health Leads (MH leads) (n = 9), Board Chairs (n =2) and one Executive Committee Lead. Results Despite an acknowledgement of an organizational commitment to lay involvement, in practice very little has occurred. The role of lay Board members in setting priorities and implementing and monitoring clinical governance remains low. Beyond Board level, involvement of users, patients of GP practices and the general public is patchy and superficial. The PCGs/PCTs continue to rely heavily on Community Health Councils (CHCs) as a conduit or substitute for user involvement; although their abolition is planned, their role to be fulfilled by new organizations called Voices, which will have an expanded remit in addition to replacing CHCs. Conclusions Clarity is required about the role of lay members in the committees and subcommittees of PCGs and PCTs. Involvement of the wider public should spring naturally from the questions under consideration, rather than be regarded as an end in itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the reform in England's national health services. He emphasizes the association of reforms with passionate arguments based on deeply held values. He stresses that the reform is intended to address deficiencies in the established health system. He stresses the factors that play a role in any reform process such as ideology, personal experience, and political pragmatism.

Integrated care has been proposed as an organising principle to address the challenges of the rising demand for care services and limited resources. There is limited understanding of the role of learning in integrated care systems. Organisational Learning (OL) theory in the guise of 'Learning Practice' can offer a lens to study service integration and reflect on some of the challenges faced by multi-professional teams in developing a learning culture. The study presents findings from two qualitative evaluations of integrated care initiatives in three East London boroughs, England, undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The evaluations employed a participatory approach, the researcher-in-residence model, to coproduce findings with frontline staff working in multi-professional teams in community care. Thematic analysis was undertaken using an adapted version of the 'Learning Practice' framework. The majority of learning in the teams was single loop i.e. learning was mainly reactive to issues that arise. Developing a learning culture in the three boroughs was hindered by the differences in the professional and organisational cultures of health and social care and challenges in developing effective structures for learning. Individual organisational priorities and pressures inhibited both the embedding of learning and effective integration of care services at the frontline. Currently, learning is not inherent in integrated care planning. The adoption of the principles of OL optimising learning opportunities, support of innovation, managed risk taking and capitalising on the will of staff to work in multidisciplinary teams might positively contribute to the development of service integration. • Organisational learning can foster the development of service integration. • Learning bridges the gap between the rhetoric of integrated care and service outcomes. • Frontline staff have demonstrated the potential for change and innovation. • Relational aspects of integrated care are integral in enabling the success of initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present the findings arising from a three year research project which investigated a major system-wide change in the design of the NHS in England. The radical policy change was enshrined in statute in 2012 and it dismantled existing health authorities in favour of new local commissioning groups built around GP Practices. The idea was that local clinical leaders would "step-up" to the challenge and opportunity to transform health services through exercising local leadership. This was the most radical change in the NHS since its inception in 1948., Design/methodology/approach: The research methods included two national postal surveys to all members of the boards of the local groups supplemented with 15 scoping case studies followed by six in-depth case studies. These case studies focused on close examination of instances where significant changes to service design had been attempted., Findings: The authors found that many local groups struggled to bring about any significant changes in the design of care systems. But the authors also found interesting examples of situations where pioneering clinical leaders were able to collaborate in order to design and deliver new models of care bridging both primary and secondary settings. The potential to use competition and market forces by fully utilising the new commissioning powers was more rarely pursued., Practical Implications: The findings carry practical implications stemming from positive lessons about securing change even under difficult circumstances., Originality/value: The paper offers novel insights into the processes required to introduce new systems of care in contexts where existing institutions tend to revert to the status quo. The national survey allows accurate assessment of the generalisability of the findings about the nature and scale of change.

Background: Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) were established in England in 2013 to encourage GPs to exert greater influence over the processes of service improvement and redesign in the NHS. Little is known about the extent and the ways in which GPs have assumed these leadership roles., Aim: To explore the nature of clinical leadership of GPs in CCGs, and to examine the enablers and barriers to implementing a policy of clinical leadership in the NHS., Design and Setting: A qualitative multi-case study approach in six localities across England. The case studies were purposefully sampled to represent different geographical localities and population demographics, and for their commitment to redesigning specified clinical or service areas., Method: Data were collected from the case study CCGs and their partner organisations using a review of relevant documents, semi-structured individual or group interviews, and observations of key meetings. The data were analysed thematically and informed by relevant theories., Results: GPs prefer a collaborative style of leadership that may be unlikely to produce rapid or radical change. Leadership activities are required at all levels in the system from strategy to frontline delivery, and the leadership behaviours of GPs who are not titular leaders are as important as formal leadership roles. A new alliance is emerging between clinicians and managers that draws on their different skillsets and creates new common interests. The uncertain policy environment in the English NHS is impacting on the willingness and the focus of GP leaders., Conclusion: GPs are making an important contribution as leaders of health service improvement and redesign but there are significant professional and political barriers to them optimising a leadership role., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Objectives: This study explores the barriers and facilitators that impact on the motivation of practitioners to participate in a quality improvement collaborative., Design: A qualitative and formative evaluation using a participatory approach, the researcher-in-residence model which embraces the concept of 'coproducing' knowledge between researchers and practitioners using a range of research methods such as participant observation, interviews and documentary analysis. The design, creation and application of newly generated evidence are facilitated by the researcher through negotiation and compromise with team members., Participants: Senior and middle managers, doctors and nurses., Setting: Two hospitals in Southeast England participating in a Patient Safety Improvement Collaborative and the facilitator (host) of the collaborative, based in Central London., Results: The evaluation has revealed facilitators and barriers to motivation categorised under two main themes: (1) inherent motivation and (2) factors that influence motivation, interorganisational and intraorganisational features as well as external factors. Facilitators included collaborative 'champions,' individuals who drove the quality improvement agenda at a local level, raising awareness and inspiring colleagues. The collaborative itself acted as a facilitator, promoting shared learning as well as building motivation for participation. A key barrier was the lack of board engagement in the participating National Health Service organisations which may have affected motivation among front-line staff., Conclusions: Collaboratives maybe an important way of engaging practitioners in quality improvement initiatives. This study highlights that despite a challenging healthcare environment in the UK, there remains motivation among individuals to participate in quality improvement programmes as they recognise that improvement approaches may facilitate positive change in local clinical processes and systems. Collaboratives can harness this individual motivation to facilitate spread and adoption of improvement methodology and build engagement across their membership., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Culture and climate represent shared beliefs and values that may influence quality of care in health care teams, and which could be manipulated for quality improvement. However, there is a lack of agreement on the theoretical and empirical relationships between climate and culture, and their relative power as predictors of quality of care. This study sought to examine the association between self-report measures of climate and culture in primary care teams and comprehensive measures of quality of care., Methods: The data were derived from a cross-sectional survey of 492 professionals in 42 general practices in England. Self-report measures of culture (the Competing Values Framework) and climate (the Team Climate Inventory) were used, together with validated measures of quality of care from medical records and self-report., Results: The majority of practices could be characterized as 'clan' culture type. Practices with a dominant clan culture scored higher on climate for participation and teamwork. There were no associations between culture and quality of care, and only limited evidence of associations between climate and quality., Conclusions: The current analysis would not support the hypothesis that culture and climate are important predictors of quality of care in primary care. Although larger studies are required to provide a definitive test, the results may suggest the need for a more complex model of the associations between culture, climate and outcomes, and further research may be required into the interaction between culture and climate with other determinants of behaviour such as internal and external incentives.

Objective: Great importance has been attached to a culture of safe practice in healthcare organisations, but it has proved difficult to engage frontline staff with this complex concept. The present study aimed to develop and test a framework for making the concept of safety culture meaningful and accessible to managers and frontline staff, and facilitating discussion of ways to improve team/organisational safety culture., Setting: Eight primary care trusts and a sample of their associated general practices in north west England., Methods: In phase 1 a comprehensive review of the literature and a postal survey of experts helped identify the key dimensions of safety culture in primary care. Semistructured interviews with 30 clinicians and managers explored the application of these dimensions to an established theory of organisational maturity. In phase 2 the face validity and utility of the framework was assessed in 33 interviews and 14 focus groups., Results: Nine dimensions were identified through which safety culture is expressed in primary care organisations. Organisational descriptions were developed for how these dimensions might be characterised at five levels of organisational maturity. The resulting framework conceptualises patient safety culture as multidimensional and dynamic, and seems to have a high level of face validity and utility within primary care. It aids clinicians' and managers' understanding of the concept of safety culture and promotes discussion within teams about their safety culture maturity., Conclusions: The framework moves the agenda on from rhetoric about the importance of safety culture to a way of understanding why and how the shared values of staff working within a healthcare organisation may be operationalised to create a safe environment for patient care.

Objectives: To investigate how general medical practices in the UK react to bureaucratic initiatives, such as National Health Service (NHS) National Service Frameworks (NSFs), and to explore the value of the metaphor of 'barriers to change' for understanding this., Methods: Interviews, non-participant observation and documentary analysis within case studies of four practices in northern England., Results: The practices had not actively implemented NSFs. At interview, various 'barriers' that had prevented implementation were listed, including the complexity of the documents and lack of time. Observation suggested that these barriers were constructions used by the participants to make sense of the situation in which they found themselves., Conclusion: The metaphor of 'removing barriers to change' was of limited use in a context where non-implementation of policy was an emergent property of underlying organizational realities, likely to be modifiable only if these realities were addressed.

Objective: The publication of information about the performance of health-care providers is regarded as central to promoting greater accountability and empowering patients to exercise choice. The evidence suggests that the public is not very interested in accessing or using current sources of information. This study aimed to explore the information needs of patients in the context of UK primary care and to develop an information source about general practice services, designed to be usable by and useful to patients., Design: An action research study making use of data from formal and informal interviews, focus groups, participant observation and document review., Setting: The geographical areas covered by two Primary Care Trusts in the north of England and two Local Health Boards in south Wales., Participants: A partnership between 103 members of the public, general practice staff from 19 practices, NHS managers from four Primary Care Organizations and the research team., Results: The public would like to know more about the quality and range of general practice services but current sources of information do not meet their needs. The public do not like league tables comparing the performance of practices and only a small number of people want to use comparative information to choose between practices. They seem to be more interested in the context and availability of services and the willingness of practices to improve, than in the practice's absolute or relative performance. They want to be clear about the source of the information so that they can make personal judgements about its veracity. Information is most likely to be useful if it adheres to the basic principles of cognitive science in terms of its structure, content and presentation format. Using these findings, paper and electronic prototype versions of a guide to general practice services have been developed., Conclusions: In order to maximize the potential use of performance information by the public it is necessary to move beyond provider-led and professionally constructed approaches to information provision and ensure that the public is actively involved in the development of information sources. Such involvement produces a different kind of information to that currently available to the public. The findings of this study have important implications for policy. Most importantly, it seems that the traditional consumerist model underlying a policy of making comparative performance information available to the public to enable them to exercise choice between primary care providers may not be appropriate. An alternative model of information provision, which recognizes the public's commitment to their practice and is integrated with 'soft' sources of knowledge is more likely to engage and be of use to the public.

Objective: To explore some of the impacts of star performance ratings in acute hospital trusts in England., Methods: A multiple case study design was used which incorporated purposeful sampling of 'low' and 'high' performing trusts using the star rating system. In each case study site, data collection comprised semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis. Between eight and 12 senior managers and senior clinicians were interviewed in each organisation., Results: There was a general view that the star ratings as presently constituted did not represent a rounded or balanced scorecard of their own organisation's performance and a widespread belief that the information used to calculate the ratings was often incomplete and inaccurate. The star ratings were viewed by some managers as useful, in that they gave added weight to their trust's modernisation agenda. In addition to driving beneficial change, the ratings were also sometimes reported to have inadvertently induced a range of unintended and dysfunctional consequences, including tunnel vision and a distortion of clinical priorities, bullying and intimidation, erosion of public trust and reduced staff morale, and ghettoisation., Conclusions: Set in the context of an international body of research, this study highlights some important gaps in knowledge and failings in current policy and practice. In particular, the many dysfunctional consequences of publishing star ratings indicate a need for a re-examination of performance management policies.

Objectives: English primary care organisations (primary care groups and trusts - PCGs, PCTs) were, and are, responsible for the quality of general practice but lack hierarchical structures and, frequently, contractual relationships through which to influence it. The theory of soft governance describes how managers can influence professional practice by other means. This study examines the hypothesis that PCG/Ts have used 'soft' clinical governance., Methods: Survey in 2000/01 of general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes, opinions and self-reported activity in six PCGs and six PCTs using a semi-structured mailed questionnaire. To assess how representative respondents were of English GPs generally, four questions from a national sample survey of English GPs were included and the results compared., Results: Responses were obtained from 437 (52%) GPs. They most often mentioned the technical aspects of clinical governance. Managerial, policy and resourcing implications were next most frequently mentioned, usually in unfavourable terms. Most GPs reported that their clinical practice had changed because of clinical governance activities, although nearly 40% also reported little difference in the quality of care provided. The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease influenced practice independently of PCG/T activities., Conclusion: English primary care organisations are exercising soft governance (although not by that name) over some but not all aspects of GPs' clinical practice. However, this soft governance is complex, not easy to sustain and appears hard to extend beyond essentially clinical domains.

Objectives: To examine the attitudes of service users, general practitioners, and clinical governance leads based in primary care trusts to the public dissemination of comparative reports on quality of care in general practice, to guide the policy and practice of public disclosure of information in primary care., Design: Qualitative focus group study using mock quality report cards as prompts for discussion., Setting: 12 focus groups held in an urban area in north west England and a semirural area in the south of England., Participants: 35 service users, 24 general practitioners, and 18 clinical governance leads., Results: There was general support for the principle of publishing comparative information, but all three stakeholder groups expressed concerns about the practical implications. Attitudes were strongly influenced by experience of comparative reports from other sectors-for example, school league tables. Service users distrusted what they saw as the political motivation driving the initiative, expressed a desire to "protect" their practices from political and managerial interference, and were uneasy about practices being encouraged to compete against each other. General practitioners focused on the unfairness of drawing comparisons from current data and the risks of "gaming" the results. Clinical governance leads thought that public disclosure would damage their developmental approach to implementing clinical governance. The initial negative response to the quality reports seemed to diminish on reflection., Conclusions: Despite support for the principle of greater openness, the planned publication of information about quality of care in general practice is likely to face considerable opposition, not only from professional groups but also from the public. A greater understanding of the practical implications of public reporting is required before the potential benefits can be realised.