Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Achieving integrated care through commissioning of primary care services in the English NHS: a qualitative analysis
  1. Imelda McDermott1,
  2. Kath Checkland1,
  3. Valerie Moran2,
  4. Lynsey Warwick-Giles1
  1. 1Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Luxembourg Institute of Health and Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
  1. Correspondence to Dr Imelda McDermott; imelda.mcdermott{at}manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Since April 2015, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have taken on the responsibility to commission primary care services. The aim of this paper is to analyse how CCGs have responded to this new responsibility and to identify challenges and factors that facilitated or inhibited achievement of integrated care systems.

Design We undertook an exploratory approach, combining data from interviews and national telephone surveys, with analysis of policy documents and case studies in four CCGs. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.

Setting/participants We reviewed 147 CCG application documents and conducted two national telephone surveys with CCGs (n=49 and n=21). We interviewed 6 senior policymakers and 42 CCG staff who were involved in primary care co-commissioning (general practitioners and managers). We observed 74 primary care commissioning committee meetings and their subgroups (approx. 111 hours).

Results CCGs in our case studies focused their primary care commissioning activities on developing strategic plans, ‘new’ primary care initiatives, and dealing with legacy work. Many plans focused on incentivising and supporting practices to work together and provide a broad range of services. There was a clear focus on ensuring the sustainability of general practice. Our respondents expressed mixed views as to what new collaborative service models, such as the new models of care and sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs), would mean for the future of primary care and the impact they could have on CCGs and their members.

Conclusions There is a disconnect between locally based primary care and the wider system. One of the major challenges we identified is the lack of knowledge and expertise in the field of primary care at STP level. While primary care commissioning by CCGs seems to be supporting local collaborations between practices, there is some way to go before this is translated into broader integration initiatives across wider footprints.

  • integration
  • integrated care
  • primary care
  • commissioning
  • NHS

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

Footnotes

  • Contributors IM, KC, VM, LWG: met the criteria for authorship and contributed to the drafting, revision and finalisation of this paper. IM, KC: drafted the initial version of the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported via the Department of Health funded Policy Research Unit in Commissioning and the Healthcare System (grant no 101/0001).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed here are those of the researchers and do not reflect the position of the Department of Health.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval The study received ethical approval from the University of Manchester’s Research Ethics Committee (ref 11104). Verbal agreement and in some cases, signed confidentiality agreement were obtained from research sites. Following agreement from the sites, agreement was also sought from the chair of meetings observed. Written consents were obtained for interviews, and oral consents were obtained for surveys.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement There are no additional data available.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.