Lessons for 'large-scale' general practice provider organisations in England from other inter-organisational healthcare collaborations

General practitioners' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in Belgium: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Belgian primary care is facing significant challenges due to increasing healthcare demands and an overall decline in the workforce. Most general practitioners (GPs) work solo or in mono-disciplinary practices, leading to suboptimal outcomes in areas such as preventive care and health promotion. In response, the Ministry of Health introduced a "New-Deal" for GPs, which includes additional funding to support innovative practice organisation models. A think tank of GP representatives was established to guide the initiative, with input from practising GPs gathered for further insight. This study aims to identify the professionals needed to support GPs in daily practice, define their roles, and explore the conditions necessary for integrating them into the GP-centred model of care.

METHODS

Eleven focus groups were conducted with 122 GPs, ensuring geographical and linguistic diversity across Belgium. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure a diverse range of organisational models across the country. A structured focus group guide was designed, incorporating three scenarios to examine tasks commonly encountered in GP practices. Data analysis was conducted using a codebook developed through an inductive approach.

RESULTS

GPs expressed a preference for relatively small-scale teams, generally consisting of nurses and receptionists. The role of a practice assistant was more ambiguously defined, positioned between clinical and administrative responsibilities. Key tools for effective team integration included co-location, well-defined protocols, a shared electronic health record, care coordination, and unified logistical management, all of which are critical to fostering multidisciplinary collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explores Belgian GPs' preferences for integrating healthcare professionals into their practices, with team composition adjusted to workload and patient needs. However, the traditional autonomy of practice design may hinder change. Future research is needed to refine financial models and integration tools for collaborative care.

Exploring the Role of Practice Managers in Dutch Oral Healthcare Practices

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The practice manager (PM) is a familiar position in Dutch oral healthcare. However, little is known about in which type of practice they work and what their responsibilities are. The aims of this study were to analyse the characteristics of oral healthcare practices that employ a PM and practices that do not, to determine responsibility for tasks described in the PM function description, and to assess to what extent the role of a PM varies between those with an oral healthcare and another background, and across practices with different characteristics.

METHODS

At the end of 2022, a questionnaire with questions about the employment of a PM in the practice was presented to 991 randomly selected general dental practitioners. The questions about the tasks of the PM were based on the job description of the PM drawn up by the Royal Dutch Dental Association. Data were analysed using chi-square test, one-way ANOVA, linear regression, and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A PM was employed in the practice of 56% of the general dental practitioners. In many cases, this PM was responsible for a large number of tasks within the sub-areas of care process, human resources, operational policy, and communication. Compared to independent practices, practices affiliated with a corporate dental company often employed a PM and the PMs had a relatively large amount of responsibility.

CONCLUSION

PMs are now commonly found in Dutch oral healthcare practices, especially in ones that are affiliated with a corporate dental company. The tasks of PMs vary, suggesting an evolving professional profile.

The changing shape of English general practice: a retrospective longitudinal study using national datasets describing trends in organisational structure, workforce and recorded appointments

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in the organisational structure, workforce and recorded appointments by role in English general practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal study.

SETTING

English general practice.

DATA SOURCES AND PARTICIPANTS

NHS England, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and Care Quality Commission national administrative datasets covering between 5 to 10 years from 2013 to 2023.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2023, the number of general practices fell by 20% from 8044 to 6419; the average practice list size increase by 40% from 6967 to 9724 patients. The total population covered by providers with over 100 000 registered patients reached 2.3 million in 2023 compared to 0.5 million in 2017. The proportion of practices under individual ownership decreased from 13% to 11% between 2018 and 2023; there was little change in the proportion owned by partnerships, incorporated companies or NHS bodies, which respectively averaged around 80.3%, 6.9% and 0.7%. Between 2015 and 2022, there was a 20% rise in the total full-time equivalent (FTE) general practice workforce, including Primary Care Network staff, from 1.97 to 2.37 per 1000 patients because of an increase in multidisciplinary other 'Direct Patient Care' (DPC) and administrative roles. The number of nurses remained stable, and the number of qualified general practitioners (GPs) decreased by 15%. In September 2022, there were 0.45 FTE qualified GPs per 1000 patients; GPs and other DPC roles, excluding nurses, each represented 19% of the FTE per 1000 patients workforce; administrative roles represented 51%. The general practice workforce is predominantly female. A quarter of GPs qualified overseas. Between 2018 and 2023, there was no clear upward or downward trend in total appointments per 1000 patients with, on average, half provided by GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 2013, there has been a shift in general practice towards larger practices with more multidisciplinary teams, alongside a reduction in the number of FTE qualified GPs per 1000 patients. We recommend that the impacts of these changes on access, quality and costs are closely monitored.

Patient reported measures of continuity of care and health outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.

METHODS

Cohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.

CONCLUSION

Whilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.

Barriers and enablers of integrated care in the UK: a rapid evidence review of review articles and grey literature 2018-2022

Integrated care refers to person-centered and coordinated, health and social care, and community services. Integrated care systems are partnerships of organizations that deliver health and care services which were placed on a statutory footing in England, April 2022. Due to the need for fast, accessible, and relevant evidence, a rapid review was conducted according to World Health Organization methods to determine barriers and enablers of integrated care across the United Kingdom, 2018-2022. Nine databases were searched for review articles reporting evaluation of integrated care interventions involving medical (clinical and diagnostic) and nonmedical (public health services and community-based or social care/person-centred care) approaches, quality checked with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist. OpenGrey and hand searches were used to identify grey literature, quality checked with the Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, and Significance checklist. Thirty-four reviews and 21 grey literature reports fitted inclusion criteria of adult physical/mental health outcomes/multiple morbidities. Thematic analysis revealed six themes (collaborative approach; costs; evidence and evaluation; integration of care; professional roles; service user factors) with 20 subthemes including key barriers (cost effectiveness; effectiveness of integrated care; evaluation methods; focus of evidence; future research; impact of integration) and enablers (accessing care; collaboration and partnership; concept of integration; inter-professional relationships; person-centered ethos). Findings indicated a paucity of robust research to evaluate such interventions and lack of standardized methodology to assess cost effectiveness, although there is growing interest in co-production that has engendered information sharing and reduced duplication, and inter-professional collaborations that have bridged task-related gaps and overlaps. The importance of identifying elements of integrated care associated with successful outcomes and determining sustainability of interventions meeting joined-up care and preventive population health objectives was highlighted.

The impact of collaborative organisational models and general practice size on patient safety and quality of care in the English National Health Service: A systematic review

Collaborative primary care has become an increasingly popular strategy to manage existing pressures on general practice. In England, the recent changes taking place in the primary care sector have included the formation of collaborative organisational models and a steady increase in practice size. The aim of this review was to summarise the available evidence on the impact of collaborative models and general practice size on patient safety and quality of care in England. We searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on the topic published between January 2010 and July 2023. The quality of articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. We screened 6533 abstracts, with full-text screening performed on 76 records. A total of 29 articles were included in the review. 19 met the inclusion criteria following full-text screening, with seven identified through reverse citation searching and three through expert consultation. All studies were found to be of moderate or high quality. A predominantly positive impact on service delivery measures and patient-level outcomes was identified. Meanwhile, the evidence on the effect on pay-for-performance outcomes and hospital admissions is mixed, with continuity of care and access identified as a concern. While this review is limited to evidence from England, the findings provide insights for all health systems undergoing a transition towards collaborative primary care.

Reasons for merging and collaborating in healthcare: Marriage or living apart together?

BACKGROUND

Across OECD countries, integration between healthcare organisations has become an indispensable part of contemporary healthcare provision. In recent years, inter-organisational collaboration has increasingly been encouraged in health and competition policy at the expense of mergers. Yet, understanding of whether healthcare organisations make an active choice between merging and collaborating is lacking. Hence, this study systematically examines (i) healthcare executives' motives for integration, (ii) their potential trade-offs between collaborating or merging, and (iii) the barriers to collaborating perceived by them.

METHODS

Early 2019, an online questionnaire was conducted among a nationwide panel of 714 healthcare executives in the Netherlands. Because of their strategic position within healthcare organisations as end-responsible managers, healthcare executives are especially suited to provide broad and in-depth knowledge on the internal and external processes and decisions. Three hundred thirty-seven Dutch healthcare executives completed the questionnaire (response rate 47%). This study sample was representative of the largest healthcare sectors in the Netherlands. In total, 137 mergers and 235 inter-organisational collaborations were reported. Both closed questions and open-ended questions were systematically analysed.

RESULTS

Improving or broadening healthcare provision is the foremost motive for mergers as well as inter-organisational collaborations. When considering both types, reducing governance complexity is one of the decisive reasons to opt for a merger, whereas aversion towards a full merger and lack of support base within the own organisation convinced healthcare executives to choose for a collaboration. When comparing specific healthcare sectors, the overlap in pursued motives and sub-motives indicates that inter-organisational collaborations and mergers are used for comparable objectives. Only a small minority of the responding executives switched between both types of integration. Institutional barriers, such as laws, regulations and financing regimes, appear to be the most restricting for healthcare executives to engage in inter-organisational collaborations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our integral approach and systematic comparison across sectors could serve policymakers, regulators and healthcare providers in aligning organisational objectives and societal objectives in decision-making on collaborations and mergers. Future research is recommended to study multiple collaboration and merger cases qualitatively for a detailed examination of decision-making by healthcare executives, and develop an integral assessment framework for balancing collaborations and mergers based on their effects in the medium to long term.

Primary care micro-teams: an international systematic review of patient and healthcare professional perspectives

BACKGROUND

International trends have shifted to creating large general practices. There is an assumption that interdisciplinary teams will increase patient accessibility and provide more cost-effective, efficient services. Micro-teams have been proposed to mitigate for some potential challenges of practice expansion, including continuity of care.

AIM

To review available literature and examine how micro-teams are described, and identify opportunities and limitations for patients and practice staff.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was an international systematic review of studies published in English.

METHOD

Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) and grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they provided evidence about implementation of primary care micro-teams. Framework analysis was used to synthesise identified literature. The research team included a public contributor co-applicant. The authors conducted stakeholder discussions with those with and without experience of micro-team implementation.

RESULTS

Of the 462 studies identified, 24 documents met the inclusion criteria. Most included empirical data from healthcare professionals, describing micro-team implementation. Results included characteristics of the literature; micro-team description; range of ways micro-teams have been implemented; reported outcomes; and experiences of patients and staff.

CONCLUSION

The organisation of primary care has potential impact on the nature and quality of patient care, safety, and outcomes. This review contributes to current debate about care delivery and how this can impact on the experiences and outcomes of patients and staff. This analysis identifies several key opportunities and challenges for future research, policy, and practice.

Towards achieving interorganisational collaboration between health-care providers: a realist evidence synthesis

Background

Interorganisational collaboration is currently being promoted to improve the performance of NHS providers. However, up to now, there has, to the best of our knowledge, been no systematic attempt to assess the effect of different approaches to collaboration or to understand the mechanisms through which interorganisational collaborations can work in particular contexts.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) explore the main strands of the literature about interorganisational collaboration and to identify the main theoretical and conceptual frameworks, (2) assess the empirical evidence with regard to how different interorganisational collaborations may (or may not) lead to improved performance and outcomes, (3) understand and learn from NHS evidence users and other stakeholders about how and where interorganisational collaborations can best be used to support turnaround processes, (4) develop a typology of interorganisational collaboration that considers different types and scales of collaboration appropriate to NHS provider contexts and (5) generate evidence-informed practical guidance for NHS providers, policy-makers and others with responsibility for implementing and assessing interorganisational collaboration arrangements.

Design

A realist synthesis was carried out to develop, test and refine theories about how interorganisational collaborations work, for whom and in what circumstances.

Data sources

Data sources were gathered from peer-reviewed and grey literature, realist interviews with 34 stakeholders and a focus group with patient and public representatives.

Review methods

Initial theories and ideas were gathered from scoping reviews that were gleaned and refined through a realist review of the literature. A range of stakeholder interviews and a focus group sought to further refine understandings of what works, for whom and in what circumstances with regard to high-performing interorganisational collaborations.

Results

A realist review and synthesis identified key mechanisms, such as trust, faith, confidence and risk tolerance, within the functioning of effective interorganisational collaborations. A stakeholder analysis refined this understanding and, in addition, developed a new programme theory of collaborative performance, with mechanisms related to cultural efficacy, organisational efficiency and technological effectiveness. A series of translatable tools, including a diagnostic survey and a collaboration maturity index, were also developed.

Limitations

The breadth of interorganisational collaboration arrangements included made it difficult to make specific recommendations for individual interorganisational collaboration types. The stakeholder analysis focused exclusively on England, UK, where the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for fieldwork.

Conclusions

Implementing successful interorganisational collaborations is a difficult, complex task that requires significant time, resource and energy to achieve the collaborative functioning that generates performance improvements. A delicate balance of building trust, instilling faith and maintaining confidence is required for high-performing interorganisational collaborations to flourish.

Future work

Future research should further refine our theory by incorporating other workforce and user perspectives. Research into digital platforms for interorganisational collaborations and outcome measurement are advocated, along with place-based and cross-sectoral partnerships, as well as regulatory models for overseeing interorganisational collaborations.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019149009.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Determinants of patients' satisfaction and trust toward healthcare service environment in general practice clinics

This study aimed to examine the healthcare service environment, patients' experience, and responses toward healthcare services in private general practice (GP) clinics. Self-administered questionnaires were used for collecting data from 367 respondents with prior experience in visiting the general practice clinics in Malaysia. SmartPLS statistical tool was used to test the underlying hypotheses. The results revealed that ambiance, service delivery, interior decor, and cleanliness had a significant influence on patients' trust and satisfaction while the exterior design is neither associated with satisfaction nor trust. Patients' satisfaction and trust had a higher significant effect on their repatronage intention, willingness to pay for a premium healthcare service, and engagement in word-of-mouth for healthcare services. In practice, both the service delivery and ambiance features of the healthcare services environment might be optimized by GP clinics. This research provides significant insights from the patients' perspective toward the GP clinics' healthcare services environment.

How do clinical quality and patient satisfaction vary with provider size in primary care? Evidence from English general practice panel data

We examine the relationship between general practice list size and measures of clinical quality and patient satisfaction. Using data on all English practices from 2005/6 to 2016/17, we estimate practice level models with rich data on patient demographics, deprivation, and morbidity. We use lagged list size to allow for potential simultaneity bias from the effect of quality on list size. We compare results from three different estimation methods: pooled ordinary least squares, random practice effects, fixed practice effects. With all three estimation methods increased list size is associated with reductions in all four measures of patient satisfaction. Increases in list size are associated with worse performance on three clinical quality indicators and better performance on three, though the precision and size of the associations varies with the estimation method. The absolute values of the elasticities of the ten quality indicators with respect to list size are small: in all cases a 10% change in list size would change quality by less than 1%. The lack of evidence that large practices have markedly better quality suggests that encouraging practices to form larger, but looser, groupings, may not, in itself, improve their performance.

Primary care micro-teams: a protocol for an international systematic review to describe and examine the opportunities and challenges of implementation for patients and healthcare professionals

INTRODUCTION

There has been a recent trend towards creating larger primary care practices with the assumption that interdisciplinary teams can deliver improved and more cost-effective services to patients with better accessibility. Micro-teams have been proposed to mitigate some of the potential challenges with practice expansion, including continuity of care. We aim to review the available literature to improve understanding of how micro-teams are described and the opportunities which primary care micro-teams can provide for practice staff and patients and limitations to their introduction and implementation. Our review asks: how is micro-team implementation described? What are the experiences of healthcare professionals and patients concerning micro-teams in primary care? What are the reported implications of micro-teams for patient care?

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus will be searched for studies in English. Grey literature will be sourced from Google Scholar, government websites, CCG websites, general practice directives and strategies with advice from stakeholders. Included studies will give evidence regarding the implementation of micro-teams. Data will be synthesised using framework analysis. We will use iterative stakeholder and public and patient participation to embed the perspectives of those whom micro-teams could impact. Included studies will be quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The quality assessment will not be used to exclude any evidence but rather to develop a narrative discussion evaluating included literature.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be necessary for this systematic review as there will only be a secondary analysis of data already available in scientific databases and the grey literature. This protocol has been submitted for registration to be made available on a review database (PROSPERO). Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and in various media, for example, conferences, congresses or symposia.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021225367.

Early development of primary care networks in the NHS in England: a qualitative mixed-methods evaluation

Objectives

Primary care networks (PCNs) were introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) in England in 2019 to improve integrated care for patients and help address financial and workforce sustainability issues in general practice. The purpose of this study was to collect early evidence on their implementation and development, including motivations to participate and what enables or inhibits progress. This paper considers the core characteristics of PCNs, and how this informs their management.

Design

A qualitative mixed-methods rapid evaluation was conducted across four case study sites in England, informed by a literature review and stakeholder workshop. Data collection comprised interviews, non-participant observation of meetings, an online survey and documentary review.

Results

General practitioners (GPs) are motivated to participate in PCNs for their potential to improve patient care, enable better coordinated services and enhance financial and workforce sustainability within primary care. However, PCNs also have an almost mandatory feel, based on the national policy context and significant financial incentives associated with joining them. PCNs offer potential to bring GPs together to work towards common goals, deliver national priorities and respond rapidly to local needs.

Conclusions

PCNs face similar challenges to other meso-level primary care organisations internationally, as they respond to local and national priorities and operate in a context of multiple goals and interests. In managing these organisations, it is important to find a balance between local and national autonomy, decision making and control.

Identifying how GPs spend their time and the obstacles they face: a mixed-methods study

Background

Although problems that impair task completion — known as operational failures — are an important focus of concern in primary care, they have remained little studied.

Aim

To quantify the time GPs spend on different activities during clinical sessions; to identify the number of operational failures they encounter; and to characterise the nature of operational failures and their impact for GPs.

Design and setting

Mixed-method triangulation study with 61 GPs in 28 NHS general practices in England from December 2018 to December 2019.

Method

Time–motion methods, ethnographic observations, and interviews were used.

Results

Time–motion data on 7679 GP tasks during 238 hours of practice in 61 clinical sessions suggested that operational failures were responsible for around 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5% to 5.4%) of all tasks undertaken by GPs and accounted for 3.9% (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.5%) of clinical time. However, qualitative data showed that time–motion methods, which depend on pre-programmed categories, substantially underestimated operational failures. Qualitative data also enabled further characterisation of operational failures, extending beyond those measured directly in the time–motion data (for example, interruptions, deficits in equipment/supplies, and technology) to include problems linked to GPs’ coordination role and weaknesses in work systems and processes. The impacts of operational failures were highly consequential for GPs’ experiences of work.

Conclusion

GPs experience frequent operational failures, disrupting patient care, impairing experiences of work, and imposing burden in an already pressurised system. This better understanding of the nature and impact of operational failures allows for identification of targets for improvement and indicates the need for coordinated action to support GPs.

When trust, confidence, and faith collide: refining a realist theory of how and why inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work

BACKGROUND

Health systems are facing unprecedented socioeconomic pressures as well as the need to cope with the ongoing strain brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the reconfiguration of health systems to encourage greater collaboration and integration has been promoted with a variety of collaborative shapes and forms being encouraged and developed. Despite this continued interest, evidence for success of these various arrangements is lacking, with the links between collaboration and improved performance often remaining uncertain. To date, many examinations of collaborations have been undertaken, but use of realist methodology may shed additional light on how and why collaboration works, and whom it benefits.

METHODS

This paper seeks to test initial context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) of interorganisational collaboration with the view to producing a refined realist theory. This phase of the realist synthesis used case study and evaluation literature; combined with supplementary systematic searches. These searches were screened for rigour and relevance, after which CMOCs were extracted from included literature and compared against existing ones for refinement, refutation, or affirmation. We also identified demi-regularities to better explain how these CMOCs were interlinked.

RESULTS

Fifty-one papers were included, from which 338 CMOCs were identified, where many were analogous. This resulted in new mechanisms such as 'risk threshold' and refinement of many others, including trust, confidence, and faith, into more well-defined constructs. Refinement and addition of CMOCs enabled the creation of a 'web of causality' depicting how contextual factors form CMOC chains which generate outputs of collaborative behaviour. Core characteristics of collaborations, such as whether they were mandated or cross-sector, were explored for their proposed impact according to the theory.

CONCLUSION

The formulation of this refined realist theory allows for greater understanding of how and why collaborations work and can serve to inform both future work in this area and the implementation of these arrangements. Future work should delve deeper into collaborative subtypes and the underlying drivers of collaborative performance.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review is part of a larger realist synthesis, registered at PROSPERO with ID CRD42019149009 .

The bigger, the better? A systematic review on the impact of mergers on primary care organizations

BACKGROUND

Primary care services are the first point of contact in a healthcare system; in the last years, many mergers and reconfigurations have taken place in this setting. The aim of this study is to summarize the literature evidence on the relationship between the increase in the size of these organizations and their performance.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out querying EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases, from their inception to January 2020. Articles which quantitatively assessed outcomes and process indicators of merger/structural reorganization of primary care organizations and qualitative articles that assessed staff perception and satisfaction were included in the review.

RESULTS

A total of 3626 articles was identified and another study was retrieved through snowball search; 11 studies were included in the systematic review. Studies about lipid profile evaluation and emergency admissions for chronic conditions showed moderate evidence in supporting the merging of primary care organizations; conversely, clinical outcome studies did not reach a sufficient level of evidence to support merging actions. A moderate evidence of a negative effect on patient's perspective was found.

CONCLUSION

Actually, there is no strong evidence in favour or against merging of primary care organizations without equivocation. This review supports the possibility to identify indicators for evaluating a merging process of primary care organizations and for adopting eventual remedies during this process. Further efforts should be made to identify additional indicators to assess merge actions among primary care organizations.

Analyzing health-care service environment with Malaysian general practice clinics

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore the private general practice (GP) clinics' service environment, patients' satisfaction and their impact on word of mouth (WoM) for others for future treatment in GP clinics.

Design/methodology/approach

Data are collected from 367 respondents using a paper-based survey questionnaire. Partial least square (PLS) is used to evaluate the proposed model and hypotheses relationships.

Findings

The findings reveal that ambience and service delivery have a high significant influence on patients' emotional satisfaction (β = 0.27, t = 4.31, p = 0.00) and (β = 0.26, t = 4.81, p = 0.00), respectively, while interior décor has a positive and significant influence on satisfaction (β = 0.13, t = 1.98, p = 0.04). The results indicate that exterior design and cleanliness are not associated with satisfaction. Patients' emotional satisfaction is highly related to WoM (β = 0.55, t = 13.44, p = 0.00). The results also show that emotional satisfaction has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between clinic service environments (ambience, interior décor, service delivery) and WoM (β = 0.15, t = 3.94, p = 0.00), (β = 0.073, t = 3.94, p = 0.04), (β = 0. 0.143, t = 4.13, p = 0.00), respectively.

Originality/value

The study will provide insights regarding Malaysian health consumers' perceptions toward GP clinics' service environment, whether they remain utilitarian or have evolved to entail hedonic appreciations. The contribution to the service environment could be adopted by future health-care studies, particularly those intended to examine GP clinics and other clinic-based institutions.

The shift to collaborative working and integration in the English NHS: developing shared leadership in primary care networks

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore leadership in the context of the policy shift to collaborative working and integration currently being pursued in the UK NHS. As ways of integrating care are being explored in other countries it can be argued that this topic may have wider policy significance. This paper is particularly concerned with leadership in Primary Care Networks in the English NHS.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper is a conceptual paper using literature relating to the antecedents of shared leadership and relevant policy documents pertaining to the English NHS. The paper is informed, theoretically by the conceptual lens of shared leadership. A conceptual framework is developed identifying the antecedents of shared leadership that help to explain how shared leadership may be developed.

Findings

The paper identifies the challenges that may be faced by policymakers and those involved in Primary Care Networks in developing shared leadership. It also reveals the implications for policymakers in developing shared leadership.

Research limitations/implications

The paper is conceptual. It is acknowledged that this is a preliminary study and further work will be required to test the conceptual framework empirically.

Practical implications

The paper discusses the policy implications of developing leadership in primary care networks. This has relevance to both the NHS and other countries.

Originality/value

There is limited research on the antecedents of shared leadership. In addition, the conceptual framework is applied to a new policy initiative.

Associations between structures, processes and outcomes in inter-municipal cooperation in out-of-hours services in Norway: A survey study

Inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) has gained widespread recognition as a beneficial strategy for improving efficiency and quality in the provision of out-of-hours emergency care services (OOH services). Little attention, however, has been given to the additional costs of cooperation and the relational processes through which benefits and costs are likely to result. Based on survey data from 266 (77%) Norwegian municipalities involved in IMC in OOH services in 2015, this study aimed to investigate how the structure (governance form, complexity and stability) and quality (trust and consensus) of cooperation processes interact to influence the perceived outcomes (benefits and costs) of IMC in OOH services. Using Structural equation modeling, we found trust and consensus fully mediated the association between the structure and outcomes of IMC. More specifically, the results suggest that cooperation structures characterized by centralized governance, stability over time, and reduced complexity were likely to enhance the benefits and reduce the costs of IMC through trust and consensus.

Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method

Framework synthesis is one systematic review method employed to address health care practice and policy. Adapted from framework analysis methods, it has been used increasingly, using both qualitative and mixed-method systematic review methods. This article demonstrates a spectrum of approaches to framework synthesis that are dependent on the extent to which theory is tentative, emergent, refined, or established; and that stakeholder involvement may help to understand the topic's complexity where theory is more nascent. The choice of approach depends on the degree of match with existing theories and, in the absence of existing theory, the scale and heterogeneity of the literature to be managed.

The impacts of GP federations in England on practices and on health and social care interfaces: four case studies

Background

General practices have begun working collaboratively in general practitioner federations, which vary in scope, geographical reach and organisational form.

Objectives

The aim was to assess how federating affects practice processes, workforce, innovations in practices and the interface with health and social care stakeholders.

Design

This was a structured cross-sectional comparison of four case studies, using observation of meetings, interviews and analysis of documents. We combined inductive analysis with literature on ‘meta-organisations’ and networks to provide a theoretically informed analysis.

Results

All federations were ‘bottom-up’ voluntary membership organisations but with formal central authority structures. Practice processes were affected substantially in only one site. In this site, practices accepted the rules imposed by federation arrangements in a context of voluntary participation. Federating helped ease workforce pressures in two sites. Progress regarding innovations in practice and working with health and social care stakeholders was slower than federations anticipated. The approach of each federation central authority in terms of the extent to which it (1) sought to exercise control over member practices and (2) was engaged in ‘system proactivity’ (i.e. the degree of proactivity in working across a broader spatial and temporal context) was important in explaining variations in progress towards stated aims. We developed a typology to reflect the different approaches and found that an approach consisting of high levels of both top-down control and system proactivity was effective. One site adopted this ‘authoritative’ approach. In another site, rather than creating expectations of practices, the focus was on supporting them by attempting to solve the immediate problems they faced. This ‘indulgent’ approach was more effective than the approach used in the other two sites. These had a more distant ‘neglectful’ relationship with practices, characterised by low levels of both control over members and system proactivity. Other key factors explaining progress (or lack thereof) were competition between federations (if any), relationship with the Clinical Commissioning Group, money, history, leadership and management issues, size and geography; these interacted in a dynamic way. In the context of a tight deadline and fixed targets, federations were able to respond to the requirements to provide additional services as part of NHS Improving Access to General Practice policy in a way that would not have been possible in the absence of federations. However, this added to pressures faced by busy clinicians and managers.

Limitations

The focus was on only four sites; therefore, any federations that were more active than those federations in these four sites will have been excluded. In addition, although patients were interviewed, because most were unaware of federations, they generally had little to say on the subject.

Conclusions

General practices working collaboratively can produce benefits, but this takes time and effort. The approach of the federation central authority (authoritative, indulgent or neglectful) was hugely influential in affecting processes and outcomes. However, progress was generally slower than anticipated, and negligible in one case.

Future work

Future work would benefit from multimethod designs, which provide in-depth, longitudinal, qualitative and quantitative methods, to shed light on processes and impacts.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.