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

Shared leadership in integrated care networks: the case of “hub and spoke” networks in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in the English NHS

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore leadership in the context of the hub and spoke network in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in the English National Health Service (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 both NHS policy and the development of OMFS. The paper is informed, theoretically by the conceptual lens of shared leadership.

Findings

The paper identifies the challenges that may be faced by policymakers and those involved in the hub and spoke network 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. The paper discusses the policy implications of developing leadership in the hub and spoke network. As networks are of interest internationally this has wider relevance to 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 context.

What makes a socially skilled leader? Findings from the implementation and operation of New Care Models (Vanguards) in England

PURPOSE

The article aims to argue that the concept of "distributed leadership" lacks the specificity required to allow a full understanding of how change happens. The authors therefore utilise the "Strategic Action Field Framework" (SAF) (Moulton and Sandfort, 2017) as a more sensitive framework for understanding leadership in complex systems. The authors use the New Care Models (Vanguard) Programme as an exemplar.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Using the SAF framework, the authors explored factors affecting whether and how local Vanguard initiatives were implemented in response to national policy, using a qualitative case study approach. The authors apply this to data from the focus groups and interviews with a variety of respondents in six case study sites, covering different Vanguard types between October 2018 and July 2019.

FINDINGS

While literature already acknowledges that leadership is not simply about individual leaders, but about leading together, this paper emphasises that a further interdependence exists between leaders and their organisational/system context. This requires actors to use their skills and knowledge within the fixed and changing attributes of their local context, to perform the roles (boundary spanning, interpretation and mobilisation) necessary to allow the practical implementation of complex change across a healthcare setting.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The SAF framework was a useful framework within which to interrogate the data, but the authors found that the category of "social skills" required further elucidation. By recognising the importance of an intersection between position, personal characteristics/behaviours, fixed personal attributes and local context, the work is novel.

Observations of community-based multidisciplinary team meetings in health and social care for older people with long term conditions in England

Background

Community-based multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) are the most common means to encourage health and social care service integration in England yet are rarely studied or directly observed. This paper reports on two rounds of non-participant observations of community-based multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings in two localities, as part of an evaluation of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneers Programme. We sought to understand how MDT meetings coordinate care and identify their ‘added value’ over bilateral discussions.

Methods

Two rounds of structured non-participant observations of 11 MDTs (28 meetings) in an inner city and mixed urban–rural area in England (June 2019-February 2020), using a group analysis approach.

Results

Despite diverse settings, attendance and caseloads, MDTs adopted similar processes of case management: presentation; information seeking/sharing; narrative construction; solution seeking; decision-making and task allocation. Patient-centredness was evident but scope to strengthen ‘patient-voice’ exists. MDTs were hampered by information governance rules and lack of interoperability between patient databases. Meetings were characterised by mutual respect and collegiality with little challenge. Decision-making appeared non-hierarchical, often involving dyads or triads of professionals. ‘Added value’ lay in: rapid patient information sharing; better understanding of contributing agencies’ services; planning strategies for patients that providers had struggled to find the right way to engage satisfactorily; and managing risk and providing mutual support in stressful cases.

Conclusions

More attention needs to be given to removing barriers to information sharing, creating scope for constructive challenge between staff and deciding when to remove cases from the caseload.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07971-x.