Search results

This paper aims to explore the learning needs of general practitioners (GPs) involved in commissioning mental health provision in England, and offer an evaluation of a leadership and commissioning skills development programme for Mental Health Commissioners.

Retrospective mixed method, including online mixed method survey, rating participants’ knowledge, skills, abilities, semi-structured telephone interviews and third-party questionnaires were used. Results were analysed for significant differences using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. Open-ended responses and interview transcripts were analysed thematically.

Indicative results showed that participants perceived significant impacts in ability across eight key question groups evaluated. Differences were found between the perceived and observed impact in relation to technical areas covered within the programme which were perceived as the highest scoring impacts by participants.

The indicative results show a positive impact on practice has been both perceived and observed. Findings illustrate the value of this development programme on both the personal development of GP Mental Health Commissioners and commissioning practice. Although the findings of this evaluation increase understanding in relation to an important and topical area, larger scale, prospective evaluations are required. Impact evaluations could be embedded within future programmes to encourage higher participant and third-party engagement. Future evaluations would benefit from collection and analysis of attendance data. Further research could involve patient, service user and carer perspectives on mental health commissioning.

Results of this evaluation could inform the development of future learning programmes for mental health commissioners as part of a national approach to improve mental health provision.

Many countries have a renewed focus on health inequalities since COVID-19. In England, integrated care systems (ICSs), formed in 2022 to promote integration, are required to reduce health inequalities. Integration is supported by population health management (PHM) which links data across health and care organisations to inform service delivery. It is not well-understood how PHM can help ICSs reduce health inequalities. This paper describes development of a programme theory to advance this understanding.

This study was conducted as a mixed-methods process evaluation in a local ICS using PHM. The study used Framework to analyse interviews with health and care professionals about a PHM tool, the COVID-19 vaccination uptake Dashboard. Quantitative data on staff Dashboard usage were analysed descriptively. To develop a wider programme theory, local findings were discussed with national PHM stakeholders.

ICS staff used PHM in heterogeneous ways to influence programme delivery and reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake. PHM data was most influential where it highlighted action was needed for “targetable” populations. PHM is more likely to influence decisions on reducing inequalities where data are trusted and valued, data platforms are underpinned by positive inter-organisational relationships and where the health inequality is a shared priority.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a shift toward use of digital health platforms and integrated working across ICSs. This paper used an evaluation of integrated data to reduce inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine delivery to propose a novel programme theory for how integrated data can support ICS staff to tackle health inequalities.

Neo-liberal “reform” has in many countries shifted services across the boundary between the public and private sector. This policy re-opens the question of what structural and managerial differences, if any, differences of ownership make to healthcare providers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the connections between ownership, organisational structure and managerial regime within an elaboration of Donabedian’s reasoning about organisational structures. Using new data from England, it considers: how do the internal managerial regimes of differently owned healthcare providers differ, or not? In what respects did any such differences arise from differences in ownership or for other reasons?

An observational systematic qualitative comparison of differently owned providers was the strongest feasible research design. The authors systematically compared a maximum variety (by ownership) sample of community health services; out-of-hours primary care; and hospital planned orthopaedics and ophthalmology providers (n=12 cases). The framework of comparison was the ownership theory mentioned above.

The connection between ownership (on the one hand) and organisation structures and managerial regimes (on the other) differed at different organisational levels. Top-level governance structures diverged by organisational ownership and objectives among the case-study organisations. All the case-study organisations irrespective of ownership had hierarchical, bureaucratic structures and managerial regimes for coordinating everyday service production, but to differing extents. In doctor-owned organisations, the doctors’, but not other occupations’, work was controlled and coordinated in a more-or-less democratic, self-governing ways.

This study was empirically limited to just one sector in one country, although within that sector the case-study organisations were typical of their kinds. It focussed on formal structures, omitting to varying extents other technologies of power and the differences in care processes and patient experiences within differently owned organisations.

Type of ownership does appear, overall, to make a difference to at least some important aspects of an organisation’s governance structures and managerial regime. For the broader field of health organisational research, these findings highlight the importance of the owners’ agency in explaining organisational change. The findings also call into question the practice of copying managerial techniques (and “fads”) across the public–private boundary.

Ownership does make important differences to healthcare providers’ top-level governance structures and accountabilities and to work coordination activity, but with different patterns at different organisational levels. These findings have implications for understanding the legitimacy, governance and accountability of healthcare organisations, the distribution and use power within them, and system-wide policy interventions, for instance to improve care coordination and for the correspondingly required foci of healthcare organisational research.