Clinical engagement in commissioning: past and present

K. Checkland, A. Coleman, Imelda McDermott, Rosalind Miller, S. Peckham, J. Segar, S. Harrison, Neil Perkins
{"title":"Clinical engagement in commissioning: past and present","authors":"K. Checkland, A. Coleman, Imelda McDermott, Rosalind Miller, S. Peckham, J. Segar, S. Harrison, Neil Perkins","doi":"10.46692/9781447346128.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 looks at the evidence about clinical engagement in primary care-led commissioning. Extending and strengthening clinical leadership was one of the key elements of the HSCA12. However, this idea was not new, and this chapter reviews the evidence on the role of clinicians in primary care-led commissioning and how this has contributed to the delivery of healthcare services since the early 1990s. It examines the nature of clinical engagement/involvement in the various primary care-led commissioning models that have been introduced into the NHS. Drawing on a review of the literature and our research on Clinical Commissioning Groups the chapter shows how the extent of clinical engagement has varied between the various schemes. GP commissioners have historically been more successful in influencing the work done by GP practices than in making broader changes to services provided by secondary care. The chapter goes on to explore the claims made both by those involved and in official documents about how greater involvement of clinicians in CCGs – and in particular GPs – will enhance commissioning practice. We test this against evidence from our study of CCGs, showing how the engagement and involvement of GPs requires careful attention to detail. Using a realist approach to evaluation, we highlight the contexts and mechanisms associated with successful – and unsuccessful – GP involvement in commissioning.","PeriodicalId":115287,"journal":{"name":"Commissioning Healthcare in England","volume":"212 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Commissioning Healthcare in England","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447346128.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 4 looks at the evidence about clinical engagement in primary care-led commissioning. Extending and strengthening clinical leadership was one of the key elements of the HSCA12. However, this idea was not new, and this chapter reviews the evidence on the role of clinicians in primary care-led commissioning and how this has contributed to the delivery of healthcare services since the early 1990s. It examines the nature of clinical engagement/involvement in the various primary care-led commissioning models that have been introduced into the NHS. Drawing on a review of the literature and our research on Clinical Commissioning Groups the chapter shows how the extent of clinical engagement has varied between the various schemes. GP commissioners have historically been more successful in influencing the work done by GP practices than in making broader changes to services provided by secondary care. The chapter goes on to explore the claims made both by those involved and in official documents about how greater involvement of clinicians in CCGs – and in particular GPs – will enhance commissioning practice. We test this against evidence from our study of CCGs, showing how the engagement and involvement of GPs requires careful attention to detail. Using a realist approach to evaluation, we highlight the contexts and mechanisms associated with successful – and unsuccessful – GP involvement in commissioning.
临床参与调试:过去和现在
第4章着眼于在初级保健主导的委托临床参与的证据。扩展和加强临床领导是HSCA12的关键要素之一。然而,这个想法并不新鲜,本章回顾了临床医生在初级保健主导的调试中的作用的证据,以及自20世纪90年代初以来,这对医疗服务的提供有何贡献。它检查了临床参与/参与的性质,在各种初级保健主导的委托模式,已引入国民保健制度。根据文献回顾和我们对临床委托小组的研究,本章显示了临床参与的程度如何在各种方案之间变化。从历史上看,全科医生专员在影响全科医生所做的工作方面比在对二级保健提供的服务进行更广泛的改变方面更成功。本章继续探讨了参与者和官方文件中关于临床医生如何更多地参与ccg(特别是全科医生)将加强委托实践的说法。我们对ccg研究的证据进行了测试,结果表明全科医生的参与需要对细节进行仔细的关注。使用现实的方法来评估,我们强调与成功和不成功的GP参与调试相关的背景和机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信