Reinventing clinical commissioning groups

Street-level diplomacy? Communicative and adaptive work at the front line of implementing public health policies in primary care

Public services are increasingly operating through network governance, requiring those at all levels of the system to build collaborations and adapt their practice. Agent-focused implementation theories, such as 'street-level bureaucracy', tend to focus on decision-making and the potential of actors to subvert national policy at a local level. While it is acknowledged that network leaders need to be adaptable and to build trust, much less consideration has been given to the requirement for skills of 'diplomacy' needed by those at the front line of delivering public services. In this article, drawing on theoretical insights from international relations about the principles of 'multi-track diplomacy', we propose the concept of street level diplomacy, offer illustrative empirical evidence to support it in the context of the implementation of public health (preventative) policies within primary care (a traditionally responsive and curative service) in the English NHS and discuss the contribution and potential limitations of the new concept. The article draws on qualitative data from interviews conducted with those implementing case finding programmes for cardiovascular disease in the West Midlands. The importance of communication and adaptation in the everyday work of professionals, health workers and service managers emerged from the data. Using abductive reasoning, the theory of multi-track diplomacy was used to aid interpretation of the 'street-level' work that was being accomplished.

The 'added value' GPs bring to commissioning: a qualitative study in primary care

BACKGROUND

The 2012 Health and Social Care Act in England replaced primary care trusts with clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) as the main purchasing organisations. These new organisations are GP-led, and it was claimed that this increased clinical input would significantly improve commissioning practice.

AIM

To explore some of the key assumptions underpinning CCGs, and to examine the claim that GPs bring 'added value' to commissioning.

DESIGN AND SETTING

In-depth interviews with clinicians and managers across seven CCGs in England between April and September 2013.

METHOD

A total of 40 clinicians and managers were interviewed. Interviews focused on the perceived 'added value' that GPs bring to commissioning.

RESULTS

Claims to GP 'added value' centred on their intimate knowledge of their patients. It was argued that this detailed and concrete knowledge improves service design and that a close working relationship between GPs and managers strengthens the ability of managers to negotiate. However, responders also expressed concerns about the large workload that they face and about the difficulty in engaging with the wider body of GPs.

CONCLUSION

GPs have been involved in commissioning in many ways since fundholding in the 1990s, and claims such as these are not new. The key question is whether these new organisations better support and enable the effective use of this knowledge. Furthermore, emphasis on experiential knowledge brings with it concerns about representativeness and the extent to which other voices are heard. Finally, the implicit privileging of GPs' personal knowledge ahead of systematic public health intelligence also requires exploration.

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study

Background

NHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.

Objectives

We aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.

Methods

We used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.

Results

There was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.

Conclusions

Policy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.