Integration and Continuity of Primary Care: Polyclinics and Alternatives, a Patient-Centred Analysis of How Organisation Constrains Care Coordination

Background An ageing population, increasingly specialised of clinical services and diverse healthcare provider ownership make the coordination and continuity of complex care increasingly problematic. The way in which the provision of complex healthcare is coordinated produces – or fails to – six forms of continuity of care (cross-sectional, longitudinal, flexible, access, informational, relational). Care coordination is accomplished by a combination of activities by: patients themselves; provider organisations; care networks coordinating the separate provider organisations; and overall health system governance. This research examines how far organisational integration might promote care coordination at the clinical level. Objectives To examine: 1. What differences the organisational integration of primary care makes, compared with network governance, to horizontal and vertical coordination of care. 2. What difference provider ownership (corporate, partnership, public) makes. 3. How much scope either structure allows for managerial discretion and ‘performance’. 4. Differences between networked and hierarchical governance regarding the continuity and integration of primary care. 5. The implications of the above for managerial practice in primary care. Methods Multiple-methods design combining: 1. Assembly of an analytic framework by non-systematic review. 2. Framework analysis of patients’ experiences of the continuities of care. 3. Systematic comparison of organisational case studies made in the same study sites. 4. A cross-country comparison of care coordination mechanisms found in our NHS study sites with those in publicly owned and managed Swedish polyclinics. 5. Analysis and synthesis of data using an ‘inside-out’ analytic strategy. Study sites included professional partnership, corporate and publicly owned and managed primary care providers, and different configurations of organisational integration or separation of community health services, mental health services, social services and acute in-patient care. Results Starting from data about patients' experiences of the coordination or under-coordination of care we identified: 1. Five care coordination mechanisms present in both the integrated organisations and the care networks. 2. Four main obstacles to care coordination within the integrated organisations, of which two were also present in the care networks. 3. Seven main obstacles to care coordination that were specific to the care networks. 4. Nine care coordination mechanisms present in the integrated organisations. Taking everything into consideration, integrated organisations appeared more favourable to producing continuities of care than were care networks. Network structures demonstrated more flexibility in adding services for small care groups temporarily, but the expansion of integrated organisations had advantages when adding new services on a longer term and larger scale. Ownership differences affected the range of services to which patients had direct access; primary care doctors’ managerial responsibilities (relevant to care coordination because of its impact on GP workload); and the scope for doctors to develop special interests. We found little difference between integrated organisations and care networks in terms of managerial discretion and performance. Conclusions On balance, an integrated organisation seems more likely to favour the development of care coordination, and therefore continuities of care, than a system of care networks. At least four different variants of ownership and management of organisationally integrated primary care providers are practicable in NHS-like settings

Integration and continuity of primary care: polyclinics and alternatives - a patient-centred analysis of how organisation constrains care co-ordination

Background An ageing population, the increasing specialisation of clinical services and diverse health-care provider ownership make the co-ordination and continuity of complex care increasingly problematic. The way in which the provision of complex health care is co-ordinated produces – or fails to produce – six forms of continuity of care (cross-sectional, longitudinal, flexible, access, informational and relational). Care co-ordination is accomplished by a combination of activities by patients themselves; provider organisations; care networks co-ordinating the separate provider organisations; and overall health-system governance. This research examines how far organisational integration might promote care co-ordination at the clinical level. Objectives To examine (1) what differences the organisational integration of primary care makes, compared with network governance, to horizontal and vertical co-ordination of care; (2) what difference provider ownership (corporate, partnership, public) makes; (3) how much scope either structure allows for managerial discretion and ‘performance’; (4) differences between networked and hierarchical governance regarding the continuity and integration of primary care; and (5) the implications of the above for managerial practice in primary care. Methods Multiple-methods design combining (1) the assembly of an analytic framework by non-systematic review; (2) a framework analysis of patients’ experiences of the continuities of care; (3) a systematic comparison of organisational case studies made in the same study sites; (4) a cross-country comparison of care co-ordination mechanisms found in our NHS study sites with those in publicly owned and managed Swedish polyclinics; and (5) the analysis and synthesis of data using an ‘inside-out’ analytic strategy. Study sites included professional partnership, corporate and publicly owned and managed primary care providers, and different configurations of organisational integration or separation of community health services, mental health services, social services and acute inpatient care. Results Starting from data about patients’ experiences of the co-ordination or under-co-ordination of care, we identified five care co-ordination mechanisms present in both the integrated organisations and the care networks; four main obstacles to care co-ordination within the integrated organisations, of which two were also present in the care networks; seven main obstacles to care co-ordination that were specific to the care networks; and nine care co-ordination mechanisms present in the integrated organisations. Taking everything into consideration, integrated organisations appeared more favourable to producing continuities of care than did care networks. Network structures demonstrated more flexibility in adding services for small care groups temporarily, but the expansion of integrated organisations had advantages when adding new services on a longer term and a larger scale. Ownership differences affected the range of services to which patients had direct access; primary care doctors’ managerial responsibilities (relevant to care co-ordination because of their impact on general practitioner workload); and the scope for doctors to develop special interests. We found little difference between integrated organisations and care networks in terms of managerial discretion and performance. Conclusions On balance, an integrated organisation seems more likely to favour the development of care co-ordination and, therefore, continuities of care than a system of care networks. At least four different variants of ownership and management of organisationally integrated primary care providers are practicable in NHS-like settings. Future research is therefore required, above all to evaluate comparatively the different techniques for coordinating patient discharge across the triple interface between hospitals, general practices and community health services; and to discover what effects increasing the scale and scope of general practice activities will have on continuity of care

Generating And Validating A Global Framework Of Pharmaceutical Development Goals And Corresponding Indicators

INTRODUCTION: The imperative of meeting current global healthcare challenges requires advancing pharmacy practice in a global context. This research aimed to design and develop a valid and consented set of global goal-oriented pharmaceutical development frameworks and corresponding indicators to support and guide systematic practice transformation needed to meet the national and global pharmaceutical healthcare demands of changing population demographics. METHODS: Part 1 of the research project This research used a mixed-methods approach. A series of international expert focus groups were conducted to evaluate the acceptance of a set of proposed global pharmaceutical development goals (PDGs). This was followed by recruiting global pharmacy leaders who participated in a modified nominal group technique to further develop the content of the initial PDGs framework. In a subsequent study, a qualitative modified Delphi approach was employed by a panel of international experts to ensure the credibility and content validity of the framework outputs and generate consensus on a final matrix of the proposed global PDGs. Part 2 of the research project A content analysis of the relevant collated data followed by a Delphi process of an international Expert Group was performed to identify and establish initial consensus on potential indicators aligned with the published PDGs framework. Delphi method’s outcomes were used to conduct a global cross-sectional online questionnaire to assess and validate the relevancy and availability of the proposed indicators. RESULTS: Part 1 of the research project A globally validated and consented set of systematic PDGs (systematic framework) for development comprising 21 PDGs along with their descriptions and mechanisms to shape and guide global pharmacy practice transformation. Part 2 of the research project A set of correlated and validated transnational evidence-based indicators that will monitor national-level progress and measure the advancement of the 21 PDGs worldwide across workforce/education, practice, and pharmaceutical science. CONCLUSION: A systematic and globally consented set of PDGs, along with evidence-based progress indicators, was generated to monitor the sustainable advancement of pharmaceutical practice and support a needs-based roadmap for pharmacy practice transformation

From Programme Theory to Logic Models for Multispecialty Community Providers: A Realist Evidence Synthesis

Background: The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets. Objectives: To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly. Design: Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way. Data sources: Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions. Results: The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individual patients and the diversion of patients from inpatient to primary care. The evidence was weaker, or mixed (supporting some of the constituent assumptions but not others), concerning voluntary sector involvement, the effects of preventative care on hospital admissions and patient experience, planned referral networks and demand management systems. The evidence about the effects of referral reductions on costs was equivocal. We found no studies confirming that the development of preventative care would reduce demands on inpatient services. The IPT had overlooked certain mechanisms relevant to MCPs, mostly concerning MDTs and the uses of HITs. Limitations: The studies reviewed were limited to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, because of the large amount of published material, the period 2014–16, assuming that later studies, especially systematic reviews, already include important earlier findings. No empirical studies of MCPs yet existed. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary teams are a central mechanism by which MCPs (and equivalent networks and organisations) work, provided that the teams include the relevant professions (hence, organisations) and, for care planning, individual patients. Further primary research would be required to test elements of the revised logic model, in particular about (1) how MDTs and enhanced general practice compare and interact, or can be combined, in managing referral networks and (2) under what circumstances diverting patients from in-patient to primary care reduces NHS costs and improves the quality of patient experience

Advancing clinical pharmacy practice

This Context Statement contains critical descriptions of my academic and professional outputs as a hospital clinical pharmacist and senior pharmacy leader, over the period 2007 to 2017, with some antecedents prior to 2007. Clinical Pharmacy has a main aim of optimising safe, appropriate and effective medicines use, for individual patients and organisations as well as system-wide. The Public Works presented here centre around four interrelated themes regarding clinical pharmacy – measuring and improving standards and quality of care; prescribing, prescribing practices and prescribing safety; innovative practice within legal and ethical frameworks; the impact and outcomes of clinical pharmacy. A unifying premise is my aim of advancing clinical pharmacy practice. The concept of measuring to improve standards and quality of clinical care has progressed considerably over the past 15 years. I present my contributions to this - developing, implementing, measuring and disseminating clinical pharmacy quality and performance indicators, as well as benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. The chapter on prescribing encompasses the impact of electronic prescribing on pharmacy practice; the formal and informal roles of hospital pharmacists as prescribers; and a practice model I developed for pharmacists to practice as both specialist and generalist prescribers. I also discuss my research into inappropriate prescribing. The innovative practices in Chapter Four include the introduction of different models of practice to improve patient care and medicines use, with significant focus on a specific initiative - redesigning the discharge medication prescription pathway. Chapter Five highlights other work which I undertook to demonstrate the potential of hospital clinical pharmacy to improve outcomes. Throughout my professional career I have promoted the development of research capability within hospital pharmacy, to better improve patient care. In the concluding chapter, I draw from other professions to conceptualise a model of integrating professional practice, theory and research. Pharmacy Praxis is a philosophy which bears further development, in order to continue the progress of clinical pharmacy

Outpatient services and primary care: scoping review, substudies and international comparisons

This study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B.Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services.Findings from the scoping reviewEvidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals.Findings from the substudiesBecause of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS.ConclusionsFor many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience. Funding, The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme

An evidence review of research on health interventions in humanitarian crises. Final Report

This review was conducted to provide a rigorous assessment of the current quality and depth of the evidence-base that informs humanitarian public health programming globally. It assesses the quantity and quality of intervention studies, rather than measuring the actual effectiveness of the intervention itself. The review addresses evidence on interventions in humanitarian crises (including early recovery and forced displacement) for health topics of: communicable disease control water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) nutrition sexual and reproductive health (SRH), including gender-based violence (GBV) mental health and psychosocial support non-communicable disease (NCD) injury and physical rehabilitation health services health systems. In addition, contextual factors influencing the delivery of health-related interventions are included in the project, consisting of: * access to health services * health assessment methods * coordination * accountability * health worker security * urbanisation. The evidence review used the following two main methods: (i) A series of systematic literature reviews on evidence of humanitarian interventions related to the health topics and on the influence of contextual factors on the interventions. The systematic review on evidence of interventions for the different health topics included quantitative evidence from published and grey literature. The systematic review on the contextual factors included quantitative and qualitative evidence from the published literature. Standard systematic review methodologies were used. (ii) Qualitative individual interviews with expert practitioners, policy makers and academics to identify critical weaknesses and gaps in the evidence base for humanitarian public health actions (including related to the contextual factors) and to recommend priority areas for further research. A series of more general consultations with humanitarian health experts through meetings in London, Geneva, Paris, and New York