Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: An interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships

Commissioning and co-production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland: An exploratory literature review

INTRODUCTION

This exploratory literature review seeks to examine the literature around commissioning processes in the co-production of health and care services, focusing on two questions: How do health and care commissioning processes facilitate and/or pose barriers to co-production in service design and delivery? What are the contextual factors that influence these processes?

METHOD

A systematic search of three databases (Medline, Public Health and Social Policy and Practice) and a search platform (Web of Science) was conducted for the period 2008-2023. A total of 2675 records were retrieved. After deduplication, 1925 were screened at title and abstract level. Forty-seven reports from 42 United Kingdom and Ireland studies were included in the review. A thematic synthesis of included studies was conducted in relation to the research questions.

RESULTS

The review identified one overarching theme across the synthesised literature: the complexity of the commissioning landscape. Three interconnected subthemes illuminate the contextual factors that influence this landscape: commissioners as leaders of co-production; navigating relationships and the collective voice.

CONCLUSION

Commissioning processes were commonly a barrier to the co-production of health and care services. Though co-production was an aspiration for many commissioners, the political and economic environment and service pressures meant that it was often not fully realised. More flexible funding models, longer-term pilot projects, an increased emphasis in social value across the health and care system and building capacity for strong leadership in commissioning is needed.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and the public did not contribute to this review as it was a small piece of work following on from a completed project, with no budget for public involvement.

Equity, expense, and expertise in biologic commissioning: adding the patient to the equation

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are increasingly managed effectively with biologic medicines. However, with relatively high unit costs, there remains a meaningful pressure to ensure streamlined, equitable, and inclusive prescription of biologics in the UK. Despite an increased awareness of the benefits of patient-centric shared decision making, patients remain on the periphery of biologic selection for the treatment of IMIDs.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a patient perspective on core issues in the commissioning, prescription, and decision making around biologics for IMIDs in the UK, focusing on England. In particular, the crucial aspect of determining 'value' for different stakeholders, who necessarily have different priorities, is considered.

EXPERT OPINION

There are disparities in commissioning, access to, and prescription of biologics for IMIDs in the UK. This creates an unequal treatment model and drives patient dissatisfaction with an 'experience lottery' for the management of disease. A more transparent approach to prescribing decisions, made in close consultation with patients, is essential for improving equity and experience with biologic treatment of IMIDs.

Commissioning [Integrated] Care in England: An Analysis of the Current Decision Context

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making for Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services

The concept of providing individuals with a ‘voice’ via stakeholder involvement has been advocated within English health care policy for several decades. Stakeholder involvement encourages people affected by an issue to contribute to planning and decision making regarding treatment and care, inclusive of providers and recipients of care. This paper explores stakeholder involvement in the design and delivery of public health alcohol services. A qualitative case study approach was adopted, including in-depth interviews with 11 alcohol commissioners, 10 alcohol service providers and 6 general practitioners plus three facilitated focus groups with 31 alcohol service users. Findings show that most participants were aware of, and could name, various methods of stakeholder involvement that they had engaged with; however, the extent and impact of stakeholder involvement in decision making are not transparent. It is essential that a deeper understanding is generated of the different roles that stakeholders can play within the entire decision-making process to maximise its utility.

Challenges and chances for local health and social care integration – Lessons from Greater Manchester, England

Purpose

Sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) were introduced to England, asking 44 local areas to submit their health and social care plans for the period from October 2016 to March 2021. This study aims to offer a deeper understanding of the complex structure in the local practice, and to discuss the associated challenges and chances.

Design/methodology/approach

Documentary analysis, qualitative interviews and questionnaire survey are used for this study. Findings have been compared and analysed thematically.

Findings

The study participants reported that apart from pooled budgets, past collaborative experience and local leadership are crucial elements for transforming health and social care integration in Greater Manchester (GM). Also, this study provides policy recommendations to promote effective collaborative partnerships in local practices and mitigate local inequity of funding progress.

Research limitations/implications

The findings of this paper cannot be extrapolated to all stakeholders due to the limited samples. Meanwhile, some of the discussions about the case of GM may not be transferrable to other STPs.

Originality/value

This study argues that the success of pooled budgets is the result, rather than the cause, of effective negotiations between various stakeholders; and therefore, there is no evidence suggesting that pooled budgets can resolve the discoordination of health and social care. Moreover, due to the bottom-up approach adopted by STPs, more effective boroughs tend to receive additional funding, resulting in an increasing gap of development between effective and ineffective boroughs.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

The maternal health-related issues that matter most to women in Ireland as they transition to motherhood - A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Many studies on women's maternity care experiences reveal recurring issues that are poor or less than optimal. Women's opinions on the maternal health-related issues that matter most to them are essential if care and services are to be improved.

AIMS

To identify the maternal health-related issues that matter most to women in Ireland, based on their own experiences of maternity care, services and motherhood.

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory study with 24 women. Following university ethical approval, audio-recorded one-to-one telephone interviews were conducted and thematically analysed.

FINDINGS

We identified two themes, each with four subthemes, connected to a central concept of the invisible woman. Pendulum of care, and subthemes Inconsistent services, All about the baby, Induced anxiety and Information seesaw, illustrated the extremes of care and services that women experienced. Magnitude of motherhood, and subthemes Weight of responsibility, Real-time reassurance, Change of identity and Growth into advocacy, depicted the intensity of their new role while transitioning to motherhood.

DISCUSSION

Findings articulate the issues that mattered most to women in Ireland as they transitioned to motherhood. Some women identified specific research topics/areas, but all of the issues identified can be translated into researchable topics that seek to improve local care and service provision.

CONCLUSION

Given the recurring nature of women's less than satisfactory experiences of aspects of maternity care in many countries, it is likely that conducting research on issues that matters most to women will have the greatest impact on their health, wellbeing and lives as they transition to motherhood.

Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: An interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health-care commissioning decisions has always been a contentious issue. However, the current moves towards Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) in England's NHS are viewed as posing the risk of reducing the impact of current structures for PPI.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how different members in clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) understand PPI as currently functioning in their decision-making practices, and the implications of the STPs for it.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis of 18 semi-structured interviews with CCG governing body voting members (e.g. clinicians and lay members), non-voting governing body members (e.g. Healthwatch representatives) and CCG staff with roles focussed on PPI, recruited from CCGs in South London STPs.

RESULTS

There are contestations amongst CCG members regarding not only what PPI is, but also the role that it currently plays and could play in commissioning decision making in the context of STPs. Three main themes were identified: PPI is 'going out' into the community; PPI as a disruptive power; and PPI as co-production, a 'utopian dream'?

CONCLUSIONS

Long-standing issues distinctive to PPI in NHS prioritization decisions are resurfacing with the moves towards STPs, particularly in relation to contradictions between the rhetoric of 'partnership' and reorganizations that foster more top-down control. The interviews reveal pervasive distrusts across a number of levels that are counterproductive to the collaborations upon which STPs rely. And it is argued that such distrust and contestations will continue until a formalized space for PPI in STP priority-setting is created.