Search results

Patient process recognition and re‐engineering (PPR) has become a major concern of recent health care development and management. This paper discusses the position of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK; where it is at present and where it aims to be. It suggests that the work of the current government in developing community care is central to the work of both the Leicester Royal Infirmary and the Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust, when building relationships between primary (community) and secondary (hospital) health care provision. This paper aims to examine whether and how PPR can improve patient processes in the NHS. It does this through a case study of PPR in Peterborough Hospital.

This special “Anbar Abstracts” issue of Journal of Management in Medicine is split into 6 sections covering abstracts under the following headings: General Management; Personnel and Training; Quality in Health Care; Health Care Marketing; Financial Management; and Information Technology.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether some aspects of the distinctive Mayo Clinic care model could be translated into English National Health Service (NHS) hospital settings, to overcome the fragmented and episodic nature of non-emergency patient care.

The authors used a rapid review to assess the literature on integrated clinical care in hospital settings and critical analysis of links between Mayo Clinic’s care model and the organisation’s performance and associated patient outcomes.

The literature directly concerned with Mayo Clinic’s distinctive ethos and approach to patient care is limited in scope and largely confined to “grey” sources or to authors and institutions with links to Mayo Clinic. The authors found only two peer-reviewed articles which offer critical analysis of the contribution of the Mayo model to the performance of the organisation.

Mayo Clinic is not the only organisation to practice integrated, in-hospital clinical care; however, it is widely regarded as an exemplar.

There are barriers to implementing a Mayo-style model in English NHS hospitals, but they are not insurmountable and could lead to much better coordination of care for some patients.

The study shows that there is an appetite among NHS patients and staff for better coordinated, multi-specialty care within NHS hospitals.

In the English NHS integrated care generally aims to improve coordination between primary, community and secondary care, but problems remain of fragmented care for non-emergency hospital patients. Use of a Mayo-type care model, within hospital settings, could offer significant benefits to this patient group, particularly for multi-morbid patients.

From December 2005, patients in the UK needing an operation will be offered a choice of four or five. These could be NHS trusts, foundation trusts, treatment centres, private hospitals or practitioners with a special interest operating within primary care. This is called “Choose and Book”. The purpose of this research is to discover how critical facilities management service factors are in influencing a choice of hospital. The aim is to find out what the most important influencing factors are to people when making a choice of which hospital to have their operation. If facilities services and the patient environment are influencing factors in the patient experience, which are considered critical.

Focus groups were used as the primary method of data collection.

The study finds that all three focus groups placed more importance on clinical factors than facilities factors. High standards of cleanliness and good hospital food were the two facilities factors that participants in all groups placed most importance on. Cleanliness was highlighted by all three groups as a top facilities priority for the NHS at the moment and there was a general perception that private hospitals have better standards of cleanliness.

By understanding how important facilities factors are in influencing patient choice and which ones have a critical impact, it will help NHS trusts focus on where they channel their resources.

This paper is of value to NHS trusts who want to make effective use of facilities services in order to be competitive in attracting patients through the new patient choice framework.

Much has been made of economizing. Yet, social scientists have paid little attention to the moment of economic failure, the moments that precede it, and the calculative infrastructures and related processes through which both failing and failure are made operable. This chapter examines the shift from the economizing of the market economy, which took place across much of the nineteenth century, to the economizing and marketizing of the social sphere, which is still ongoing. The authors consider a specific case of the economizing of failure, namely the repeated attempts over more than a decade to create a failure regime for National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. These attempts commenced with the Health and Social Care Act 2003, which drew explicitly on the Insolvency Act 1986. This promised a “failure regime” for NHS Foundation Trusts modeled on the corporate sector. Shortly after the financial crash, and in the middle of one of the biggest scandals to face NHS hospitals, these proposals were abandoned in favor of a regime based initially on the notion of “de-authorization.” The notion of de-authorization was then itself abandoned, in favor of the notion of “unsustainable provider,” most recently also called the Trust Special Administrators regime. The authors suggest that these repeated attempts to devise a failure regime for NHS hospitals have lessons that go beyond the domain of health care, and that they highlight important issues concerning the role that “exit” models and associated calculative infrastructures may play in the economizing and regulating of public services and the social sphere more broadly.

Over half of adults under the age of 65 years will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives (Ahmad et al., 2015). Demand for services is outstripping the capacity in the NHS, as 77% of NHS Trusts are unable to start treatment within 62 days (Baker, 2019; NHS England, 2019). Side effects of treatment can be life threatening (Tsai et al., 2010) with many patients attending ED; however, these can be managed through a hospital’s Acute Oncology Service (AOS). This paper aims to explore a collaborative leadership approach to improve services for patients [Rubin et al., 2015; Department of Health (DOH), 2012].

A case study of an AOS in an NHS Trust was the focus for the development of a strategy of ‘Collaborative’ leadership, with the aim to increase the engagement of a wide network of clinical and non-clinical stakeholders in a review of the AOS. The case study identified the level of effectiveness of the service since its inception in 2012. Using a quality improvement methodology (Deming 2000; Health Foundation, 2011; Aylott, 2019) resulted in learning and increased collaboration between clinical and non-clinical staff.

Action learning processes revealed that AOS staff had been frustrated for some time about the dysfunction of the current process to manage the increased demand for the service. They reported their perceptions and frustrations with the current process of referral and patient discharge. Data revealed alerts from the Emergency Department (ED) to AOS resulted in 72% of patients inappropriately referred, with an over representation of patients who had a previous existing cancer condition. Clinical engagement with the data informatics manager (DC) revealed a need to improve data quality through improvements made to the database.

Increasing demand for cancer services requires a continuous need for improvement to meet patient needs. Cancer waits for diagnostic tests are at their highest level since 2008, with 4% of patients waiting over 6 weeks to be tested compared to the tested target of 1% (Baker, 2019). This paper draws on data collected from 2017 to 2018, but a continuous review of data is required to measure the performance of the AOS against its service specification. Every AOS team across the NHS could benefit from a collaborative learning approach.

Clinical services need collaborative support from informatics to implement a Quality Improvement methodology such as the IHI Model for Improvement (IHI, 2003). Without collaboration the implementation of a quality improvement strategy for all NHS Trusts will not come to fruition (Kings Fund, 2016). Quality Improvement Strategies must be developed with a collaborative leadership implementation plan that includes patient collaboration strategies (Okpala, 2018), as this is the only way that services will be improved while also becoming cost effective (Okpala, 2018).

In the UK, 20-25% of new cancer diagnoses are made following an initial presentation to the ED (Young et al., 2016). Cancer-related attendances at ED had a higher level of acuity, requiring longer management time and length of stay in ED. With cancer care contributing to 12% of all hospital admissions, an increase of 25% over the past two decades (Kuo et al., 2017) the AOS will need continued collaboration between clinical staff, informatic managers, patients and all stakeholder organisations to continuously improve its services to be “fit for purpose”.

This case study reports the innovative collaborative work between a Medical Oncologist, an NHS Trust Informatics manager and a QI academic facilitator. The Health Foundation and Kings Fund have identified the continued challenges presented to the NHS in the transformation of its services, with the Health Foundation (2011) reporting the need for more collaborative working between clinicians and non-clinicians to drive improvement. This model of collaboration creates a new way of working to drive improvement initiatives and sets out a rationale to develop this model further to involve patients. However, this will call for a new way of working for all.

The purpose of this paper is, for English acute NHS hospitals, to investigate how they operate their governance systems in the area of secondary care contracting and identify the key determinants of relationship building within the contacting/commissioning of secondary care focusing upon non‐price competitive behaviour.

A survey instrument was designed and mailed to a sample of all acute NHS hospitals in England of whom 35 per cent responded. This survey was then analysed using logit techniques.

The analysis suggests that: those NHS Trusts offering volume discounts, non‐price competitive incentives or having a strong belief in performance being by “payment by results” criteria are significantly more likely to offer augmented services to secondary care purchasers over and above contractual minima; those NHS Trusts strongly believing in the importance of non‐price factors (such as contract augmentation or quality) in the contracting process are more likely to offer customisation of generic services; and those NHS Trusts using cost‐sharing agreements to realign contracts when negotiating contracts or who strongly believe in the importance of service augmentation in strengthening relationships, or that increased hospital efficiency is the most important aspect of recent NHS reform are more likely to utilise default measures to help realign contracts.

This paper fills a gap in the area of non‐price competition in English NHS acute secondary care contracting.

Using the example of capital charging in UK hospitals, this paper shows how new public policy initiatives are justified through forms of persuasion without numbers and can be challenged with empirics. A reading of official and academic texts shows how the official problem definition focuses on poor asset utilisation. Hospital accounts are then reworked to show that, although poor asset utilisation was never a major problem, the introduction of capital charges could disrupt service provision. The conclusion is that the operation of NHS hospitals should be understood in terms of distributive conflict, rather than inefficiency. Through practical demonstration, the authors of this article aim to encourage accounting researchers to use numbers to challenge public policy definitions.

This special “Anbar Abstracts” issue of the Journal of Management in Medicine is split into seven sections covering abstracts under the following headings: General Management; Personnel and Training; Quality in Health Care; Health Care Marketing; Financial Management; Information Technology; Leadership, management styles and decision making.

Hospitals provide the same type of service, but they do not all provide the same quality of service. No one knows this better than patients. Reports the results of a market research exercise initiated to ascertain the different factors which patients of health care identify as being necessary to provide error‐free service quality with NHS hospitals. To measure patients’ satisfaction with NHS hospitals, the internationally‐used market research technique called SERVQUAL was used in order to measure patients’ expectations before admission, record their perceptions after discharge from the hospital, and then to close the gap between them. This technique compares expectations with perceptions of service received across five broad dimensions of service quality, namely; tangibility; reliability: responsiveness; assurance; and empathy. This analysis covered 174 patients who had completed the SERVQUAL questionnaire, including patients who had had treatment in surgical, orthopaedic, spinal injury, medicinal, dental and other specialties in the West Midlands region. Recorded the average weighted NHS service quality score overall for the five dimensions as significantly negative.