The dynamics of commissioning across organisational and clinical boundaries

The unpredictable journeys of spreading, sustaining and scaling healthcare innovations: a scoping review

Innovation has the potential to improve the quality of care and health service delivery, but maximising the reach and impact of innovation to achieve large-scale health system transformation remains understudied. Interest is growing in three processes of the innovation journey within health systems, namely the spread, sustainability and scale-up (3S) of innovation. Recent reviews examine what we know about these processes. However, there is little research on how to support and operationalise the 3S. This study aims to improve our understanding of the 3S of healthcare innovations. We focus specifically on the definitions of the 3S, the mechanisms that underpin them, and the conditions that either enable or limit their potential. We conducted a scoping review, systematically investigating six bibliographic databases to search, screen and select relevant literature on the 3S of healthcare innovations. We screened 641 papers, then completed a full-text review of 112 identified as relevant based on title and abstract. A total of 24 papers were retained for analysis. Data were extracted and synthesised through descriptive and inductive thematic analysis. From this, we develop a framework of actionable guidance for health system actors aiming to leverage the 3S of innovation across five key areas of focus, as follows: (1) focus on the why, (2) focus on perceived-value and feasibility, (3) focus on what people do, rather than what they should be doing, (4) focus on creating a dialogue between policy and delivery, and (5) focus on inclusivity and capacity building. While there is no standardised approach to foster the 3S of healthcare innovations, a variety of practical frameworks and tools exist to support stakeholders along this journey.

What's Needed to Develop Strategic Purchasing in Healthcare? Policy Lessons from a Realist Review

BACKGROUND

In the context of serious concerns over the affordability of healthcare, various authors and international policy bodies advise that strategic purchasing is a key means of improving health system performance. Such advice is typically informed by theories from the economics of organization (EOO). This paper proposes that these theories are insufficient for a full understanding of strategic purchasing in healthcare, because they focus on safeguarding against poor performance and ignore the coordination and adaptation needed to improve performance. We suggest that insights from other, complementary theories are needed.

METHODS

A realist review method was adopted involving 3 steps: first, drawing upon complementary theories from the EOO and inter-organizational relationships (IOR) perspectives, a theoretical interpretation framework was developed to guide the review; second, a purposive search of scholarly databases to find relevant literature addressing healthcare purchasing; and third, qualitative analysis of the selected texts and thematic synthesis of the results focusing on lessons relevant to 3 key policy objectives taken from the international health policy literature. Texts were included if they provided relevant empirical data and met specified standards of rigour and robustness.

RESULTS

A total of 58 texts were included in the final analysis. Lessons for patient empowerment included: the need for clearly defined rights for patients and responsibilities for purchasers, and for these to be enacted through regular patientpurchaser interaction. Lessons for government stewardship included: the need for health strategy to contain specific targets to incentivise purchasers to align with national policy objectives, and for national government actors to build close, trusting relationships with purchasers to facilitate access to local knowledge about needs and priorities. Lessons for provider performance included: provider decision autonomy may drive innovation and efficient resource use, but may also create scope for opportunism, and interdependence likely to be the best power structure to incentivise collaboration needed to drive performance improvement.

CONCLUSION

Using complementary theories suggests a range of general policy lessons for strategic purchasing in healthcare, but further empirical work is needed to explore how far these lessons are a practically useful guide to policy in a variety of healthcare systems, country settings and purchasing process phases.

Sustaining diabetes prevention and care interventions: A multiple case study of translational research projects

BACKGROUND

This study identifies the barriers and enablers for sustainability of interventions in primary and secondary prevention of diabetes. In the context of translational research, sustainability is defined as the continued use of program components and activities for the continued achievement of desirable program and population outcomes.

METHODS

In this study, eleven translational research projects, supported by the BRIDGES program of the International Diabetes Federation, were investigated. By theoretically-informed semi-structured interviews and analyses of project reports, qualitative data was collected on the sustainability outcomes and the barriers and enablers.

RESULTS

The sustainability outcomes can be grouped in three main areas: (1) sustainability at the intervention site(s); (2) diffusion to the wider community; and (3) replication of the intervention at other site(s). Each of the outcomes has their own set of enablers and barriers, and thus requires consideration for a different sustainability strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first international study that relates the sustainability outcomes of translational research project to specific barriers and enablers, and develops an evidence-based framework which provides practical advice on how to ensure the sustainability of health interventions.

Spending by primary care practices - does it show what we expect?

BACKGROUND

Over recent years, a number of policies and financial incentives in primary care have been proposed to tackle issues such as deprivation and health outcomes. This article investigates the association between healthcare spending, deprivation and outcomes. It argues that individual practice data are analysed before blanket application and acceptance that one size fits all in a local area.

METHODS

Financial data were analysed alongside key outcome data, including quality and outcomes framework (QOF) indicators for a large urban primary care trust (PCT) in the UK. The PCT had a large population and number of practices, including single-handed practices and an average list size in excess of 5000. The PCT will remain anonymous.

RESULTS

There was no relationship between primary care investment and the practices' deprivation score. There was a strong statistically significant negative correlation between QOF payments and deprivation, (correlation = -0.46, p < 0.001). There were only weak links between primary care investment and health outcomes. There was no relationship between high emergency spending and health outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented suggest that one size does not necessarily fit all - in terms of providing the appropriate incentives in primary care, nor do national incentives and policies always have the desired effect.

Barriers and opportunities for evidence-based health service planning: the example of developing a Decision Analytic Model to plan services for sexually transmitted infections in the UK

Background

Decision Analytic Models (DAMs) are established means of evidence-synthesis to differentiate between health interventions. They have mainly been used to inform clinical decisions and health technology assessment at the national level, yet could also inform local health service planning. For this, a DAM must take into account the needs of the local population, but also the needs of those planning its services.

Drawing on our experiences from stakeholder consultations, where we presented the potential utility of a DAM for planning local health services for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the UK, and the evidence it could use to inform decisions regarding different combinations of service provision, in terms of their costs, cost-effectiveness, and public health outcomes, we discuss the barriers perceived by stakeholders to the use of DAMs to inform service planning for local populations, including (1) a tension between individual and population perspectives; (2) reductionism; and (3) a lack of transparency regarding models, their assumptions, and the motivations of those generating models.

Discussion

Technological advances, including improvements in computing capability, are facilitating the development and use of models such as DAMs for health service planning. However, given the current scepticism among many stakeholders, encouraging informed critique and promoting trust in models to aid health service planning is vital, for example by making available and explicit the methods and assumptions underlying each model, associated limitations, and the process of validation. This can be achieved by consultation and training with the intended users, and by allowing access to the workings of the models, and their underlying assumptions (e.g. via the internet), to show how they actually work.

Summary

Constructive discussion and education will help build a consensus on the purposes of STI services, the need for service planning to be evidence-based, and the potential for mathematical tools like DAMs to facilitate this.