Exploring the impacts of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act reforms to commissioning on clinical activity in the English NHS: a mixed methods study of cervical screening

A systematic review of the factors - barriers and enablers - affecting the implementation of clinical commissioning policy to reduce health inequalities in the National Health Service (NHS), UK

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study is two-fold. First, it attempts to identify the barriers and enablers of implementing clinical commissioning policy. Second, it synthesises how these barriers and enablers affect the success of National Health Service (NHS) efforts to reduce health inequalities in the UK.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. We searched large biomedical bibliographic databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied & Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA, Global Health and CINAHL for primary studies, conducted in the UK, that assessed the factors - barriers and enablers related to health inequalities, published from 2010 onwards and in English, and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We used Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal and Mixed Methods Appraisal tools to assess the methodological qualities, and synthesised by performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included six primary studies (including a total of 1155 participants) in the final review. The studies reported two broad categories, under four separate themes: (1) the agenda of health inequalities has not been given priority; (2) there was very little evidence for reducing health inequalities through the clinical commissioning (CC) process; (3) CC was positively associated with the restructuring of NHS; and (4) CC brings better collaboration and engagement, which led to some improvements in health services access, utilisation and delivery at the local level.

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful factors - barriers and enablers - to implement and deliver clinical commissioning policy in improving health and well-being. These factors could be assessed in future to develop objective measures and interventions to establish the link between commissioning and health inequalities.

Implementing a national diabetes prevention programme in England: lessons learned

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is preventable through lifestyle intervention. Diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) aim to deliver prevention-based behaviour change interventions to reduce incidence. Such programmes vary from usual primary care in terms of where, how, and by whom they are delivered. Implementation is therefore likely to face new commissioning, incentive and delivery challenges. We report on the implementation of a national DPP in NHS England, and identify lessons learned in addressing the implementation challenges.

Methods

In 2017/18, we conducted 20 semi-structured telephone interviews covering 16 sampled case sites with the designated lead(s) responsible for local implementation of the programme. Interviews explored the process of implementation, including organisation of the programme, expectations and attitudes to the programme, funding, target populations and referral and clinical pathways. We drew on constant comparative methods to analyse the data and generate over-arching themes. We complemented our qualitative data with a survey focused on variation in the financial incentives used across sites to ensure usual primary care services recruited patients to new providers.

Results

We identified five over-arching areas of learning for implementing this large-scale programme: 1) managing new providers; 2) promoting awareness of services; 3) recruiting patients; 4) incentive payments; and 5) mechanisms for sharing learning. In general, tensions appeared to be caused by a lack of clear roles/responsibilities between hierarchical actors, and lack of communication. Both local sites and the national NHS coordination team gained experience through learning by doing. Initial tensions with roles and expectations have been worked out during implementation.

Conclusions

Implementing a national disease prevention programme is a major task, and one that will be increasingly faced by health systems globally as they aim to adjust to demand pressures. We provide practical learning opportunities for the wider uptake and sustainability of prevention programmes. Future implementers might wish to define clear responsibilities for each actor prior to implementation, ensure early engagement with new providers, offer mechanisms/forums for sharing learning, generate evidence and provide advice on incentive payments, and prioritise public and professional awareness of the programme.