Search results

This paper aims to present the findings from research commissioned by the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI), which set out to examine the impact of CHI's clinical governance reviews on NHS trusts in England.

This paper, giving a stratified random sample of 30 NHS trusts, was taken from a set of 75 trusts reviewed by CHI during a period from 2001 to 2003. Documents from these trusts' reviews were analysed. A postal questionnaire was sent to key stakeholders with an involvement or direct interest in each trust's review. Semi‐ structured telephone interviews were held with five to six people from each of four trusts selected as case studies.

In this paper the clinical governance review process was characterized by wide variability in methods, application and effects, in the initial CHI visit and report, and the subsequent NHS trust action plan and SHA progress review. The recommendations made by reviews for change in an NHS trust were often of a nature or expressed in terms, which made measuring their subsequent implementation and impact problematic. CHI recommendations concentrated on management and support processes rather than on direct patient care and outcomes. Trusts were generally willing to accept and then enact CHI review recommendations.

The paper concluded that a more focused and controlled review process would support greater change and improvement. There was evidence to suggest that this kind of regulatory intervention can have largely positive impacts on the organisational performance of NHS trusts, although these positive effects were mainly indirectly related to the delivery of patient care and health improvement. Any future review or inspection processes should place a greater focus upon patient outcomes if such reviews are to demonstrate their value in making a contribution to improving health.

The paper shows that, internationally, there have been few empirical studies analysing the work of health care regulators and their impact on the organisations they regulate. While the work of CHI has been examined by others, this study is the first empirical and largely quantitative analysis of CHI's regulatory regime and its impact within the English NHS. The article is also published at a time when there is much debate about regulatory functions and forms for health and social care.

The 2017 Naylor Review has been the subject of some controversy, with some of the press, social media and other critics portraying its recommendations as a “fire sale” or privatisation of the NHS. The purpose of this paper is to examine preceding reports into efficiency and best value of the NHS, the evidence behind the review recommendations, and analyse data into housing affordability for the capital’s NHS staff. It concludes by advocating for partnerships with housing associations to deliver social and financial value by utilising redundant NHS land to deliver the affordable housing that London and the rest of the UK so urgently needs.

The paper was developed using the content analysis of preceding independent reviews of NHS efficiency, published critiques of the Naylor Review and analysis of NHS produced data to consider the potential savings and opportunities for reinvestment in capital projects.

The paper identifies existing partnership models and examples of good practice and advocates the adoption of joint ventures and other forms of partnership to ensure that both best value is achieved from the sale of NHS assets, and publicly owned assets are reused for social purpose.

The paper uses existing data, analysis and context to map a route for achieving best value in managing the publicly owned asset base and reinvesting the proceeds of the sale of redundant properties into UK public services.

This paper is a personal description of the NHS Health and Well‐being Final Report (Department of Health, 2009a), which reviewed the health and well‐being of the NHS workforce. The review was commissioned by the Department of Health and concluded that significant associations could be found between staff health and well‐being and organisational performance. The review calls for improved emphasis and leadership on NHS staff health matters.

The National Health Service (NHS) is facing unprecedented financial strain. These significant economic pressures have coincided with concerns regarding the quality and safety of the NHS provider sector. To make the necessary improvements to performance, policy interest has turned to encouraging greater collaboration and partnership working across providers.

Using a purposive search of academic and grey literature, this narrative review aimed (1) to establish a working typology of partnering arrangements for improvement across NHS providers and (2) inform the development of a plausible initial rough theory (IRF) of partnering to inform an ongoing realist synthesis.

Different types of partnership were characterised by degree of integration and/or organisational change. A review of existing theories of partnering also identified a suitable framework which incorporated key elements to partnerships, such as governance, workforce, leadership and culture. This informed the creation of an IRF of partnerships, which proposes that partnership “interventions” are proposed to primarily cause changes in governance, leadership, IT systems and care model design, which will then go on to affect culture, user engagement and workforce.

Further realist evaluation, informed by this review, will aim to uncover configurations of mechanisms, contexts and outcomes in various partnering arrangements and limitations. As this is the starting point for building a programme theory, it draws on limited evidence.

This paper presents a novel theory of partnering and collaborating in healthcare with practical implications for policy makers and practitioners.

The success ofIn this paper, key changes taking in the development of the UK health sector from the 1940s to the mid‐1990s are briefly sketched. The changes originating from a variety of socio‐economic and political circumstances have largely been responsible for the current shape and position of the NHS. In a forthcoming paper, we will review the status of the NHS under the new Labour Government and examine implications of new changes for the future of the NHS.

Waiting lists have been a cause of concern since the inception of the NHS. Many theories have been put forward to explain their existence and there have been many proposals to reduce their length. With the current changes in the NHS and the introduction of the Patient′s Charter has come a renewed emphasis on reducing waiting lists and waiting times. However, analysis of incentives within the new system suggests that waiting lists may be reduced by limiting access rather than by increasing treatment rate. Further, not only GP Fundholding, but also the contractual relationships between District Health Authorities and hospitals may lead to two‐tier systems, with admission priorities based on source of funding rather than clinical urgency. Overall, it is concluded that the NHS Review may result in fewer people obtaining treatment, but with shorter waits for those who do receive treatment.

Outlines the development of the profession of podiatry, and its regulatory bodies. Highlights areas of podiatric practice which are currently under scrutiny in terms of the quality of care being delivered to the patient. Considers the position of this profession in relation to the recent changes in health care in the United Kingdom and the possibility of changes in the finding of podiatric education, these changes being a direct result of the 1989 NHS Review. Finally, makes certain recommendations designed to inform and assist the profession of podiatry in the development of a cohesive quality assurance strategy, such a strategy being central to the effective delivery of health care in the NHS of the 1990s.

This paper explores the consequences of the introduction by National Health Service (NHS) trusts (i.e. hospitals) of their own pay systems. It is based on case studies of ten NHS trusts and involved 73 interview sessions with a variety of stakeholders and the examination of employment data and performance indicators. The research revealed the tensions and countervailing forces inherent in NHS pay: the tension between national and local pay; the tension between simplification and the need to address the different requirements of the many occupational groups in the NHS; the tension between performance pay and feelings of equity; and the tension between equal pay and the traditional pay determination arrangements. These findings are discussed in the context of the proposed new NHS pay system.

I would like to discuss the implications of recent NHS reforms for the provision and use of information in healthcare—particularly in the National Health Service.

The purpose of this paper is to give the details of the development of the health libraries standards in England during the last decade; to identify and analyse the main features and innovations of the new accreditation framework published last year to assess the quality of that type of library, comparing it with the previous accreditation programme, and to present its first results.

This study is based on a comparative analysis between the two main health libraries’ accreditation programmes developed in England (the Helicon checklist and the LQAF framework), reviewing the goals they intend to achieve, the methodology they propose and the structure and content of their standards. This analysis is built on a wide literature review, including mostly grey resources: technical standards and reports, newsletters, minutes of meetings, and briefings

In the study, the main changes incorporated in the LQAF framework have been identified both at strategic, tactical and operational levels, delimiting the scope of the “360 degrees review” of the health libraries situation it aims. Besides, the main achievements since the LQAF appeared have been stated: the undertaken of the first National Baseline Assessments against the standards, whose results show the good fitness of English health libraries’ services quality, and the creation of the Innovation Reward. The near future, however, raises some uncertainties prompted by a new revision of the standards.

This is the first study about the new LQAF framework and it also provides the first comparison in the literature and a unique view of the main health libraries’ national accreditation programmes in England.