Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Accountable to whom, for what? An exploration of the early development of Clinical Commissioning Groups in the English NHS
  1. Kath Checkland1,
  2. Pauline Allen2,
  3. Anna Coleman1,
  4. Julia Segar1,
  5. Imelda McDermott1,
  6. Stephen Harrison1,
  7. Christina Petsoulas2,
  8. Stephen Peckham3
  1. 1Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Department of Health Service Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  3. 3Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, The Registry, Canterbury, Kent, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kath Checkland; Katherine.checkland{at}manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective One of the key goals of the current reforms in the English National Health Service (NHS) under the Health and Social Care Act, 2012, is to increase the accountability of those responsible for commissioning care for patients (clinical commissioning groups (CCGs)), while at the same time allowing them a greater autonomy. This study was set out to explore CCG's developing accountability relationships.

Design We carried out detailed case studies in eight CCGs, using interviews, observation and documentary analysis to explore their multiple accountabilities.

Setting/participants We interviewed 91 people, including general practitioners, managers and governing body members in developing CCGs, and undertook 439 h of observation in a wide variety of meetings.

Results CCGs are subject to a managerial, sanction-backed accountability to NHS England (the highest tier in the new organisational hierarchy), alongside a number of other external accountabilities to the public and to some of the other new organisations created by the reforms. In addition, unlike their predecessor commissioning organisations, they are subject to complex internal accountabilities to their members.

Conclusions The accountability regime to which CCGs are subject to is considerably more complex than that which applied their predecessor organisations. It remains to be seen whether the twin aspirations of increased autonomy and increased accountability can be realised in practice. However, this early study raises some important issues and concerns, including the risk that the different bodies to whom CCGs are accountable will have differing (or conflicting) agendas, and the lack of clarity over the operation of sanction regimes.

  • Accountability
  • Case Study Research
  • Clinical Commissioning Groups

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Supplementary materials

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.