Inter-organisational collaboration enabling care delivery in a specialist cancer surgery provider network: A qualitative study

Objective: To explore the processes, challenges and strategies used to govern and maintain inter-organisational collaboration between professionals in a provider network in London, United Kingdom, which implemented major system change focused on the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery. Methods: We used a qualitative design involving interviews with stakeholders (n = 117), non-participant observations (n = 163) and documentary analysis (n = 100). We drew on an existing model of collaboration in healthcare organisations and expanded this framework by applying it to the analysis of collaboration in the context of major system change. Results: Network provider organisations established shared goals, maintained central figures who could create and sustain collaboration, and promoted distributed forms of leadership. Still, organisations continued to encounter barriers or challenges in relation to developing opportunities for mutual acquaintanceship across all professional groups; the active sharing of knowledge, expertise and good practice across the network; the fostering of trust; and creation of information exchange infrastructures fit for collaborative purposes. Conclusion: Collaborative relationships changed over time, becoming stronger post-implementation in some areas, but continued to be negotiated where resistance to the centralisation remained. Future research should explore the sustainability of these relationships and further unpack how hierarchies and power relationships shape inter-organisational collaboration

Variation in quality of acute stroke care by day and time of admission: prospective cohort study of weekday and weekend centralised hyperacute stroke unit care and non-centralised services.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate variations in quality of acute stroke care and outcomes by day and time of admission in London hyperacute stroke units compared with the rest of England. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using anonymised patient-level data from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. SETTING: Acute stroke services in London hyperacute stroke units and the rest of England. PARTICIPANTS: 68 239 patients with a primary diagnosis of stroke admitted between January and December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Hub-and-spoke model for care of suspected acute stroke patients in London with performance standards designed to deliver uniform access to high-quality hyperacute stroke unit care across the week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 16 indicators of quality of acute stroke care, mortality at 3 days after admission to the hospital, disability at the end of the inpatient spell, length of stay. RESULTS: There was no variation in quality of care by day and time of admission to the hospital across the week in terms of stroke nursing assessment, brain scanning and thrombolysis in London hyperacute stroke units, nor was there variation in 3-day mortality or disability at hospital discharge (all p values>0.05). Other quality of care measures significantly varied by day and time of admission across the week in London (all p values0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The London hyperacute stroke unit model achieved performance standards for 'front door' stroke care across the week. The same benefits were not achieved by other models of care in the rest of England. There was no weekend effect for mortality in London or the rest of the England. Other aspects of care were not constant across the week in London hyperacute stroke units, indicating some performance standards were perceived to be more important than others

“Attending to History” in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration

BACKGROUND: The reconfiguration of specialist hospital services, with service provision concentrated in a reduced number of sites, is one example of major system change (MSC) for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes. This paper explores the reconfiguration of specialist oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery services in a large urban area of England (Greater Manchester, GM), with a focus on the role of history in this change process and how reconfiguration was achieved after previous failed attempts. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative research from a mixed-methods evaluation of the reconfiguration of specialist cancer surgery services in GM. Forty-six interviews with relevant stakeholders were carried out, along with ~160 hours of observations at meetings and the acquisition of ~300 pertinent documents. Thematic analysis using deductive and inductive approaches was undertaken, guided by a framework of 'simple rules' for MSC. RESULTS: Through an awareness of, and attention to, history, leaders developed a change process which took into account previous unsuccessful reconfiguration attempts, enabling them to reduce the impact of potentially challenging issues. Interviewees described attending to issues involving competition between provider sites, change leadership, engagement with stakeholders, and the need for a process of change resilient to challenge. CONCLUSION: Recognition of, and response to, history, using a range of perspectives, enabled this reconfiguration. Particularly important was the way in which history influenced and informed other aspects of the change process and the influence of stakeholder power. This study provides further learning about MSC and the need for a range of perspectives to enable understanding. It shows how learning from history can be used to enable successful change

What does it take to provide clinical interventions with temporal consistency? A qualitative study of London hyperacute stroke units.

OBJECTIVES: Seven-day working in hospitals is a current priority of international health research and policy. Previous research has shown variability in delivering evidence-based clinical interventions across different times of day and week. We aimed to identify factors influencing such variations in London hyperacute stroke units (HASUs). DESIGN: Interview and observation study to explain patterns of variation in delivery and outcomes of care described in a quantitative partner paper (Melnychuk et al). SETTING: Eight HASUs in London. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed HASU staff (n=76), including doctors, nurses, therapists and administrators. We also conducted non-participant observations of delivery of care at different times of the day and week (n=45; ~102 hours). We analysed the data for thematic content relating to the ability of staff to provide evidence-based interventions consistently at different times of the day and week. RESULTS: Staff were able to deliver 'front door' interventions consistently by taking on additional responsibilities out of hours (eg, deciding eligibility for thrombolysis); creating continuities between day and night (through, eg, governance processes and staggering rotas); building trusting relationships with, eg, Radiology and Emergency Departments and staff prioritisation of 'front door' interventions. Variations by time of day resulted from reduced staffing in HASUs and elsewhere in hospitals in the evenings and at the weekend. Variations by day of week (eg, weekend effect) resulted from lack of therapy input and difficulties repatriating patients at weekends, and associated increases in pressure on Fridays and Mondays. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based service standards can facilitate 7-day working in acute stroke services. Standards should ensure that the capacity and capabilities required for 'front door' interventions are available 24/7, while other services, for example, therapies are available every day of the week. The impact of standards is influenced by interdependencies between HASUs, other hospital services and social services

Navigating the micro-politics of major system change: the implementation of Sustainability Transformation Partnerships in the English health and care system

Objective: To investigated how health and care leaders navigate the micro-politics of major system change as manifest in the formulation and implementation of Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) in the English National Health Service. Methods: A comparative qualitative case study of three STPs carried out between 2018-21. Data collection comprises 72 semi-structured interviews with STP leaders and stakeholders; 49 hours of observations of STP executive meetings, management teams and thematic committees; and documentary sources. Interpretative analysis involved developing individual and cross case reports to understand the 'disagreements, 'people and interests', and the 'skills, behaviours and practice'. Findings: Three linked political fault-lines underpin the micro-politics of formulating and implementing STPs: differences in meaning and value, perceptions of winners and losers and structural differences in power and influence. In managing these issues, STP leaders engaged in a range of complementary strategies to understand and reconcile meanings, appraise and manage risks and benefits, and to redress longstanding power imbalances, as well as those related to their own ambiguous position.Conclusion: Given the lack of formal authority and breadth of system change, navigating the micro-politics of major system change requires political skills in listening and engagement, strategic appraisal of the political landscape, and effective negotiation and consensus-building

Understanding the Political Skills and Behaviours for Leading the Implementation of Health Services Change: A Qualitative Interview Study

Background: The implementation of change in health and care services is often complicated by organisational micro-politics. There are calls for those leading change to develop and utilise political skills and behaviours to understand and mediate such politics, but to date only limited research offers a developed empirical conceptualisation of the political skills and behaviours for leading health services change. Methods: A qualitative interview study was undertaken with 66 healthcare leaders from the English National Health Service (NHS). Participants were sampled on the basis of their variable involvement in leading change processes, taking into account anticipated differences in career stage, leadership level and role, care sector, and professional backgrounds. Interpretative data analysis led to the development of five themes. Results: Participants’ accounts highlighted five overarching sets of political skills and behaviours: personal and inter-personal qualities relating to self-belief, resilience and the ability to adapt to different audiences; strategic thinking relating to the ability to understand the wider and local political landscape from which to develop realistic plans for change; communication skills for engaging and influencing stakeholders, especially for understanding and mediating stakeholders’ competing interests; networks and networking in terms of access to resources, and building connections between stakeholders; and relational tactics for dealing with difficult individuals through more direct forms of negotiation and persuasion. Conclusion: The study offers further empirical insight the existing literature on healthcare organisational politics by describing and conceptualising the political skills and behaviours of implementing health services change

Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change

Acquiring and developing healthcare leaders’ political skills: an interview study with healthcare leaders

Background Research suggests health and care leaders need to develop a distinct set of political skills in order to understand and manage the competing interests and agenda that characterise health and care services. Aim To understand how healthcare leaders describe the acquisition and development of political skills with the aim of providing evidence for leadership development programme. Methods: A qualitative interview study was carried out between 2018 and 2019 with 66 health and care leaders located within the English National Health Service. Qualitative data were subject to interpretative analysis and coding, with themes related to pre-existing literature on the methods of leadership skill development. Results The primary method of acquiring and developing political skill is through direct experience in leading and changing services. This is unstructured and incremental in nature with skill development increased through the accumulation of experience. Many participants described mentoring as an important source of political skill development, especially for reflecting on first-hand experiences, understanding the local environment and fine-tuning strategies. A number of participants describe formal learning opportunities as giving them permission to discuss political issues, and providing frameworks for conceptual understanding of organisational politics. Overall, no one approach appears to reflect the changing developmental needs of leaders. Conclusions The study suggests that healthcare leaders’ development of political skills and behaviours might be supported through an integrative approach that takes into account the evolving learning needs and opportunities at different career stages in the form of a maturation framework

Centralisation of specialist cancer surgery services in two areas of England: the RESPECT-21 mixed-methods evaluation

Background: Centralising specialist cancer surgical services is an example of major system change. High-volume centres are recommended to improve specialist cancer surgery care and outcomes. Objective: Our aim was to use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the centralisation of specialist surgery for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophago-gastric cancers in two areas of England [i.e. London Cancer (London, UK), which covers north-central London, north-east London and west Essex, and Greater Manchester Cancer (Manchester, UK), which covers Greater Manchester]. Design: Stakeholder preferences for centralising specialist cancer surgery were analysed using a discrete choice experiment, surveying cancer patients (n = 206), health-care professionals (n = 111) and the general public (n = 127). Quantitative analysis of impact on care, outcomes and cost-effectiveness used a controlled before-and-after design. Qualitative analysis of implementation and outcomes of change used a multisite case study design, analysing documents (n = 873), interviews (n = 212) and non-participant observations (n = 182). To understand how lessons apply in other contexts, we conducted an online workshop with stakeholders from a range of settings. A theory-based framework was used to synthesise these approaches. Results: Stakeholder preferences – patients, health-care professionals and the public had similar preferences, prioritising reduced risk of complications and death, and better access to specialist teams. Travel time was considered least important. Quantitative analysis (impact of change) – only London Cancer’s centralisations happened soon enough for analysis. These changes were associated with fewer surgeons doing more operations and reduced length of stay [prostate –0.44 (95% confidence interval –0.55 to –0.34) days; bladder –0.563 (95% confidence interval –4.30 to –0.83) days; renal –1.20 (95% confidence interval –1.57 to –0.82) days]. The centralisation meant that renal patients had an increased probability of receiving non-invasive surgery (0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.08). We found no evidence of impact on mortality or re-admissions, possibly because risk was already low pre-centralisation. London Cancer’s prostate, oesophago-gastric and bladder centralisations had medium probabilities (79%, 62% and 49%, respectively) of being cost-effective, and centralising renal services was not cost-effective (12% probability), at the £30,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Qualitative analysis, implementation and outcomes – London Cancer’s provider-led network overcame local resistance by distributing leadership throughout the system. Important facilitators included consistent clinical leadership and transparent governance processes. Greater Manchester Cancer’s change leaders learned from history to deliver the oesophago-gastric centralisation. Greater Manchester Cancer’s urology centralisations were not implemented because of local concerns about the service model and local clinician disengagement. London Cancer’s network continued to develop post implementation. Consistent clinical leadership helped to build shared priorities and collaboration. Information technology difficulties had implications for interorganisational communication and how reliably data follow the patient. London Cancer’s bidding processes and hierarchical service model meant that staff reported feelings of loss and a perceived ‘us and them’ culture. Workshop – our findings resonated with workshop attendees, highlighting issues about change leadership, stakeholder collaboration and implications for future change and evaluation. Limitations: The discrete choice experiment used a convenience sample, limiting generalisability. Greater Manchester Cancer implementation delays meant that we could study the impact of only London Cancer changes. We could not analyse patient experience, quality of life or functional outcomes that were important to patients (e.g. continence). Future research: Future research may focus on impact of change on care options offered, patient experience, functional outcomes and long-term sustainability. Studying other approaches to achieving high-volume services would be valuable. Study registration: ational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Portfolio reference 19761