英格兰初级保健网络发展的早期证据:一项快速评估研究

Judith A Smith, S. Parkinson, A. Harshfield, M. Sidhu
{"title":"英格兰初级保健网络发展的早期证据:一项快速评估研究","authors":"Judith A Smith, S. Parkinson, A. Harshfield, M. Sidhu","doi":"10.3310/hsdr-tr-129678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Primary care networks are groups of general practices brought together in July 2019 to hold shared budgets and develop new services in response to NHS England (now NHS England and Improvement) policy. This study examined the early implementation of primary care networks, especially what has helped or hindered progress, how they operate in relation to pre-existing collaborations and issues for rural networks.\n \n \n \n To produce early evidence about the development of primary care networks to inform policy for their future development. Our research questions were to investigate (1) the contextual background of primary care networks; (2) the rationale for general practices to enter into collaborations; (3) the early learning from establishing primary care networks; (4) barriers to and facilitators of effective collaboration across general practices; and (5) the likely future progress of primary care networks in the English NHS, including in the light of COVID-19.\n \n \n \n A qualitative cross-comparative case study evaluation comprised four work packages: (1) a rapid evidence assessment; (2) a workshop with academics, policy experts and patient/public representatives; (3) interviews with stakeholders, observations of meetings, a survey and documentary analysis across four case study sites; and (4) analysis and synthesis of findings to develop recommendations for the next stage of the development of primary care networks.\n \n \n \n Primary care networks have been implemented in a timely manner and have established a range of new local health services. Previous general practice collaborations provide much-needed support in terms of management, leadership and infrastructure, although they can be a source of tension within networks where interests, goals and ways of working do not align. Reasons for collaborative working typically focus on the sustainability of primary care and a desire for better-integrated services, although those cited as the basis for joining primary care networks were mostly related to policy and financial incentives. Early evidence reveals operational success in establishing organisational structures, recruiting to new roles and providing services as required by the national specification. Effective management and leadership, particularly with respect to having a committed clinical director, and constructive relationships between primary care networks and clinical commissioning groups, are important in ensuring success. In rural areas there was some perceived lack of fit with aspects of the primary care network specification, alongside existing challenges of providing primary care to rural populations.\n \n \n \n Arranging and carrying out interviews proved difficult given the workload associated with implementing networks and wider time pressures. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was unable to undertake planned face-to-face workshops to explore findings. Given that primary care networks were in their first year of operation at the time of this evaluation, we were cautious in drawing definitive conclusions.\n \n \n \n Key lessons focus on increasing the engagement of general practices and wider primary care teams with networks; building leadership and management capacity to support networks in fulfilling their contractual obligations and meeting local health needs; and clarifying how primary care networks will operate in the post-COVID-19 health and social care system.\n \n \n \n Future work could involve evaluating the impact and effectiveness of primary care networks using quantitative and qualitative measures; undertaking research in both rural and urban areas, exploring the extent to which this context is significant; examining the cost and effectiveness of sustaining and extending leadership and management support within primary care networks; and understanding the relationships between primary care networks and the wider health and care system.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110790.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early evidence of the development of primary care networks in England: a rapid evaluation study\",\"authors\":\"Judith A Smith, S. Parkinson, A. Harshfield, M. Sidhu\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/hsdr-tr-129678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Primary care networks are groups of general practices brought together in July 2019 to hold shared budgets and develop new services in response to NHS England (now NHS England and Improvement) policy. This study examined the early implementation of primary care networks, especially what has helped or hindered progress, how they operate in relation to pre-existing collaborations and issues for rural networks.\\n \\n \\n \\n To produce early evidence about the development of primary care networks to inform policy for their future development. Our research questions were to investigate (1) the contextual background of primary care networks; (2) the rationale for general practices to enter into collaborations; (3) the early learning from establishing primary care networks; (4) barriers to and facilitators of effective collaboration across general practices; and (5) the likely future progress of primary care networks in the English NHS, including in the light of COVID-19.\\n \\n \\n \\n A qualitative cross-comparative case study evaluation comprised four work packages: (1) a rapid evidence assessment; (2) a workshop with academics, policy experts and patient/public representatives; (3) interviews with stakeholders, observations of meetings, a survey and documentary analysis across four case study sites; and (4) analysis and synthesis of findings to develop recommendations for the next stage of the development of primary care networks.\\n \\n \\n \\n Primary care networks have been implemented in a timely manner and have established a range of new local health services. Previous general practice collaborations provide much-needed support in terms of management, leadership and infrastructure, although they can be a source of tension within networks where interests, goals and ways of working do not align. Reasons for collaborative working typically focus on the sustainability of primary care and a desire for better-integrated services, although those cited as the basis for joining primary care networks were mostly related to policy and financial incentives. Early evidence reveals operational success in establishing organisational structures, recruiting to new roles and providing services as required by the national specification. Effective management and leadership, particularly with respect to having a committed clinical director, and constructive relationships between primary care networks and clinical commissioning groups, are important in ensuring success. In rural areas there was some perceived lack of fit with aspects of the primary care network specification, alongside existing challenges of providing primary care to rural populations.\\n \\n \\n \\n Arranging and carrying out interviews proved difficult given the workload associated with implementing networks and wider time pressures. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was unable to undertake planned face-to-face workshops to explore findings. Given that primary care networks were in their first year of operation at the time of this evaluation, we were cautious in drawing definitive conclusions.\\n \\n \\n \\n Key lessons focus on increasing the engagement of general practices and wider primary care teams with networks; building leadership and management capacity to support networks in fulfilling their contractual obligations and meeting local health needs; and clarifying how primary care networks will operate in the post-COVID-19 health and social care system.\\n \\n \\n \\n Future work could involve evaluating the impact and effectiveness of primary care networks using quantitative and qualitative measures; undertaking research in both rural and urban areas, exploring the extent to which this context is significant; examining the cost and effectiveness of sustaining and extending leadership and management support within primary care networks; and understanding the relationships between primary care networks and the wider health and care system.\\n \\n \\n \\n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110790.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr-tr-129678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr-tr-129678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

初级保健网络是2019年7月聚集在一起的全科医生小组,旨在根据英国国民保健服务体系(现为英国国民保健服务体系和改进)的政策,共享预算并开发新服务。本研究考察了初级保健网络的早期实施,特别是帮助或阻碍进展的因素,以及它们如何与已有的合作和农村网络的问题相关联。提供有关初级保健网络发展的早期证据,为其未来发展提供政策信息。我们的研究问题是调查(1)初级保健网络的背景;(2)全科医生合作的理由;(3)建立初级保健网络的早期学习;(4)全科医生之间有效合作的障碍和促进因素;(5)英国NHS初级保健网络未来可能取得的进展,包括考虑到COVID-19。定性的交叉比较案例研究评估包括四个工作包:(1)快速证据评估;(2)由学者、政策专家和患者/公众代表参加的研讨会;(3)对利益相关者进行访谈,对会议进行观察,对四个案例研究地点进行调查和文献分析;(4)分析和综合研究结果,为初级保健网络的下一阶段发展提出建议。及时实施了初级保健网络,并建立了一系列新的地方保健服务。以前的全科实践合作在管理、领导和基础设施方面提供了急需的支持,尽管它们可能成为网络中利益、目标和工作方式不一致的紧张关系的来源。协作工作的原因通常集中在初级保健的可持续性和对更好的综合服务的渴望,尽管那些被列为加入初级保健网络的基础主要与政策和财政激励有关。早期证据显示,在建立组织结构、招聘新角色和提供国家规范要求的服务方面,运作取得了成功。有效的管理和领导,特别是在有一个忠诚的临床主任方面,以及初级保健网络和临床委托小组之间的建设性关系,是确保成功的重要因素。在农村地区,除了向农村人口提供初级保健方面存在的挑战外,还存在一些被认为不符合初级保健网络规范的方面。考虑到与实施网络有关的工作量和更大的时间压力,安排和进行面谈证明是困难的。在2019冠状病毒病大流行爆发后,该小组无法开展计划中的面对面研讨会来探讨研究结果。鉴于初级保健网络在本评估时处于运作的第一年,我们对得出明确结论持谨慎态度。主要经验教训侧重于增加全科医生和更广泛的初级保健团队与网络的接触;建立领导和管理能力,以支持网络履行合同义务和满足当地保健需要;并澄清初级保健网络将如何在covid -19后的卫生和社会保健系统中运作。未来的工作可能涉及使用定量和定性措施评估初级保健网络的影响和有效性;在农村和城市地区进行研究,探索这一背景的重要性;审查在初级保健网络内维持和扩大领导和管理支持的成本和效益;了解初级保健网络和更广泛的卫生保健系统之间的关系。本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42018110790。该项目由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健和提供研究方案资助,将全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第10卷,第27期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early evidence of the development of primary care networks in England: a rapid evaluation study
Primary care networks are groups of general practices brought together in July 2019 to hold shared budgets and develop new services in response to NHS England (now NHS England and Improvement) policy. This study examined the early implementation of primary care networks, especially what has helped or hindered progress, how they operate in relation to pre-existing collaborations and issues for rural networks. To produce early evidence about the development of primary care networks to inform policy for their future development. Our research questions were to investigate (1) the contextual background of primary care networks; (2) the rationale for general practices to enter into collaborations; (3) the early learning from establishing primary care networks; (4) barriers to and facilitators of effective collaboration across general practices; and (5) the likely future progress of primary care networks in the English NHS, including in the light of COVID-19. A qualitative cross-comparative case study evaluation comprised four work packages: (1) a rapid evidence assessment; (2) a workshop with academics, policy experts and patient/public representatives; (3) interviews with stakeholders, observations of meetings, a survey and documentary analysis across four case study sites; and (4) analysis and synthesis of findings to develop recommendations for the next stage of the development of primary care networks. Primary care networks have been implemented in a timely manner and have established a range of new local health services. Previous general practice collaborations provide much-needed support in terms of management, leadership and infrastructure, although they can be a source of tension within networks where interests, goals and ways of working do not align. Reasons for collaborative working typically focus on the sustainability of primary care and a desire for better-integrated services, although those cited as the basis for joining primary care networks were mostly related to policy and financial incentives. Early evidence reveals operational success in establishing organisational structures, recruiting to new roles and providing services as required by the national specification. Effective management and leadership, particularly with respect to having a committed clinical director, and constructive relationships between primary care networks and clinical commissioning groups, are important in ensuring success. In rural areas there was some perceived lack of fit with aspects of the primary care network specification, alongside existing challenges of providing primary care to rural populations. Arranging and carrying out interviews proved difficult given the workload associated with implementing networks and wider time pressures. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was unable to undertake planned face-to-face workshops to explore findings. Given that primary care networks were in their first year of operation at the time of this evaluation, we were cautious in drawing definitive conclusions. Key lessons focus on increasing the engagement of general practices and wider primary care teams with networks; building leadership and management capacity to support networks in fulfilling their contractual obligations and meeting local health needs; and clarifying how primary care networks will operate in the post-COVID-19 health and social care system. Future work could involve evaluating the impact and effectiveness of primary care networks using quantitative and qualitative measures; undertaking research in both rural and urban areas, exploring the extent to which this context is significant; examining the cost and effectiveness of sustaining and extending leadership and management support within primary care networks; and understanding the relationships between primary care networks and the wider health and care system. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110790. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信