Making sense of joint commissioning: three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency

Background: In recent years joint commissioning has assumed an important place in the policy and practice of English health and social care. Yet, despite much being claimed for this way of working there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the outcomes of joint commissioning. This paper examines the types of impacts that have been claimed for joint commissioning within the literature. Method: The paper reviews the extant literature concerning joint commissioning employing an interpretive schema to examine the different meanings afforded to this concept. The paper reviews over 100 documents that discuss joint commissioning, adopting an interpretive approach which sought to identify a series of discourses, each of which view the processes and outcomes of joint commissioning differently. Results: This paper finds that although much has been written about joint commissioning there is little evidence to link it to changes in outcomes. Much of the evidence base focuses on the processes of joint commissioning and few studies have systematically studied the outcomes of this way of working. Further, there does not appear to be one single definition of joint commissioning and it is used in a variety of different ways across health and social care. The paper identifies three dominant discourses of joint commissioning – prevention, empowerment and efficiency. Each of these offers a different way of seeing joint commissioning and suggests that it should achieve different aims. Conclusions: There is a lack of clarity not only in terms of what joint commissioning has been demonstrated to achieve but even in terms of what it should achieve. Joint commissioning is far from a clear concept with a number of different potential meanings. Although this ambiguity can be helpful in some ways in the sense that it can bring together disparate groups, for example, if joint commissioning is to be delivered at a local level then more specificity may be required in terms of what they are being asked to deliver

Orthotic management of instability of the knee related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders: systematic review, qualitative study, survey and costing analysis

Background Patients who have knee instability that is associated with neuromuscular disease (NMD) and central nervous system (CNS) conditions can be treated using orthoses, such as knee–ankle–foot orthoses (KAFOs). Objectives To assess existing evidence on the effectiveness of orthoses; patient perspectives; types of orthotic devices prescribed in the UK NHS; and associated costs. Methods Qualitative study of views of orthoses users – a qualitative in-depth interview study was undertaken. Data were analysed for thematic content. A coding scheme was developed and an inductive approach was used to identify themes. Systematic review – 18 databases were searched up to November 2014: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, PASCAL, Scopus, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Recal Legacy, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Conference Proceedings Citation Index: Science, Health Management Consortium, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and National Technical Information Service. Studies of adults using an orthosis for instability of the knee related to NMD or a CNS disorder were included. Data were extracted and quality was assessed by two researchers. Narrative synthesis was undertaken. Survey and costing analysis – a web survey of orthotists, physiotherapists and rehabilitation medicine physicians was undertaken. Telephone interviews with orthotists informed a costing analysis. Results Qualitative study – a total of 24 people participated. Potential for engagement in daily activities was of vital importance to patients; the extent to which their device enabled this was the yardstick by which it was measured. Patients’ prime desired outcome was a reduction in pain, falls or trips, with improved balance and stability. Effectiveness, reliability, comfort and durability were the most valued features of orthoses. Many expressed frustration with perceived deficiencies in service provision relating to appointment and administrative systems and referral pathways. Systematic review – a total of 21 studies (478 participants) were included of people who had post-polio syndrome, inclusion body myositis, were post stroke or had spinal cord injury. The studies evaluated KAFOs (mainly carbon fibre), stance control KAFO and hip KAFOs. All of the studies were at risk of bias and, in general, were poorly reported. Survey and costing analysis – in total, 238 health-care professionals responded. A range of orthoses is prescribed for knee instability that is related to NMD or CNS conditions, approximately half being custom-made. At least 50% of respondents thought that comfort and confidence in mobility were extremely important treatment outcomes. The cost of individual KAFOs was highly variable, ranging from £73 to £3553. Conclusions Various types of orthoses are used in the NHS to manage patients with NMD/CNS conditions and knee instability, both custom-made and prefabricated, of variable cost. Evidence on the effectiveness of the orthoses is limited, especially in relation to the outcomes that are important to orthoses users. Limitations The population included was broad, limiting any in-depth consideration of specific conditions. The response rate to the survey was low, and the costing analysis was based on some assumptions that may not reflect the true costs of providing KAFOs. Future work Future work should include high-quality research on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orthoses; development of a core set of outcome measures; further exploration of the views and experiences of patients; and the best models of service delivery. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010180. The qualitative study is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65240228. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

NHS cancer care in England and Wales

Includes 'supporting documents' CD-ROM attached to inside back coverAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m01/42944 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Patients' views and experiences of NHS cancer services A review of the literature

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m01/42946 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Cancer and primary care The views and experiences of general practitioners and community nurses in caring for people with cancer

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m01/42947 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo