PCT commissioning: how community nurse involvement can be encouraged

Commissioning is the process by which PCTs identify the health needs of their population and make prioritized decisions to secure care to meet those needs within available resources. It includes longer term strategic planning, medium term planning (three year Local delivery Plans) and the shorter term agreement and performance management of service level agreements. The process should involve the public, engage clinicians, and be conducted on a whole system basis, informed by health equity audits, and carried through with the full participation of other stakeholders including NHS Trusts, local authority(s) and the voluntary sector (NHS Modernization Agency, 2004)

Framing quality improvement tools and techniques in healthcare: the case of Improvement Leaders' Guides

The paper presents a study of how quality improvement tools are framed within healthcare settings.\ud \ud The paper employs an interpretive approach to understand how quality improvement tools and techniques are mobilised and legitimated using a case study of the NHS Modernisation Agency Improvement Leaders’ Guides.\ud \ud Improvement Leaders’ Guides were framed within a service improvement approach encouraging the use of quality improvement tools and techniques within healthcare settings. Their use formed part of enacting tools and techniques across different contexts. Whilst this enactment was believed to support the mobililsation of tools and techniques, the experience also illustrated the challenges in distributing such approaches.\ud \ud The paper provides a contribution to our understanding of framing the 'social act' of quality improvement. Given the ongoing emphasis on quality improvement and the persistent challenges involved, it also provides information for healthcare leaders globally in seeking to develop, implement or modify similar tools and distribute leadership within health and social care settings.\ud \ud \u

The next phase of healthcare improvement: what can we learn from social movements?

To date, improvement in health care has relied mainly on a "top down" programme by programme approach to service change and development. This has spawned a multitude of different and often impressive improvement schemes and activities. We question whether what has been happening will be sufficient to achieve the desired scale of change within the time scales set. Is it a case of "more of the same" or are there new and different approaches that might now be usefully implemented? Evidence from the social sciences suggests that other perspectives may help to recast large scale organisational change efforts in a new light and offer a different, though complementary, approach to improvement thinking and practice. Particularly prominent is the recognition that such large scale change in organisations relies not only on the "external drivers" but on the ability to connect with and mobilise people?s own "internal" energies and drivers for change, thus creating a "bottom up" locally led "grass roots" movement for improvement and change

Maternity care and 'Every Child Matters'

The first part of the chapter will provide an introduction to maternity services in the UK and why it is the foundation of ‘Every Child Matters’. It is the earliest healthcare intervention of all for the child and it is essential to get it right for babies and parents. The role of the key professionals involved with care provision will be explained as they may be unfamiliar to some readers. By using case studies as examples, the chapter will then explore how each of them contributes to addressing the key recommendations of Every Child Matters including the Common Assessment framework (CAF) and the strategic challenges of the Children’s Workforce. The final part of the chapter will focus on discussing future trends in maternity care with relation to Every Child Matters

MATRICS: A Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies

There are few rigorous methods for combining qualitative and quantitative findings from studies with complex interventions using multiple research methods and giving appropriate weight to each without introducing bias to the overall conclusions.We developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) for the ENIGMA study (Evaluating Innovations in Gastroenterology by the NHS Modernisation Agency) – a multi-centre, mixed-methods study to evaluate the impact of the Modernising Endoscopy Services programme [1], funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR SDO ref 08/1304/46)

Lost in translation: a multi-level case study of the metamorphosis of meanings and action in public sector organisational innovation

This paper explores the early implementation of an organisational innovation in the UK National Health Service (NHS) - Treatment Centres (TCs) - designed to dramatically reduce waiting lists for elective care. The paper draws on case studies of eight TCs (each at varying stages of their development) and aims to explore how meanings about TCs are created and evolve, and how these meanings impact upon the development of the organisational innovation. Research on organisational meanings needs to take greater account of the fact that modern organisations like the NHS are complex multi-level phenomena, comprising layers of interlacing networks. To understand the pace, direction and impact of organisational innovation and change we need to study the interconnections between meanings across different organisational levels. The data presented in this paper show how the apparently simple, relatively unformed, concept of a TC framed by central government, is translated and transmuted by subsequent layers in the health service administration, and by players in local health economies and, ultimately in the TCs themselves, picking up new rationales, meanings, and significance as it goes. The developmental histories of TCs reveal a range of significant re-workings of macro policy with the result that there is considerable diversity and variation between local TC schemes. The picture is of important disconnections between meanings, that in many ways mirror Weick’s (1976) ‘loosely coupled systems’. The emergent meanings and the direction of micro-level development of TCs appear more strongly determined by interactions within the local TC environment, notably between what we identify as groups of ‘idealists’, ‘pragmatists’, ‘opportunists’ and ‘sceptics’ than by the framing (Goffman 1974) provided by macro and meso organisational levels. While this illustrates the limitations of top down and policy-driven attempts at change, and highlights the crucial importance of the front-line local ‘micro-systems’ (Donaldson & Mohr, 2000) in the overall scheme of implementing organisational innovations, the space or headroom provided by frames at the macro and meso levels can enable local change, albeit at variable speed and with uncertain outcomes

Qualitative research within trials: developing a standard operating procedure for a clinical trials unit

<p>BACKGROUND: Qualitative research methods are increasingly used within clinical trials to address broader research questions than can be addressed by quantitative methods alone. These methods enable health professionals, service users, and other stakeholders to contribute their views and experiences to evaluation of healthcare treatments, interventions, or policies, and influence the design of trials. Qualitative data often contribute information that is better able to reform policy or influence design.</p> <p>METHODS: Health services researchers, including trialists, clinicians, and qualitative researchers, worked collaboratively to develop a comprehensive portfolio of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the West Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health (WWORTH), a clinical trials unit (CTU) at Swansea University, which has recently achieved registration with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC). Although the UKCRC requires a total of 25 SOPs from registered CTUs, WWORTH chose to add an additional qualitative-methods SOP (QM-SOP).</p> <p>RESULTS: The qualitative methods SOP (QM-SOP) defines good practice in designing and implementing qualitative components of trials, while allowing flexibility of approach and method. Its basic principles are that: qualitative researchers should be contributors from the start of trials with qualitative potential; the qualitative component should have clear aims; and the main study publication should report on the qualitative component.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that CTUs consider developing a QM-SOP to enhance the conduct of quantitative trials by adding qualitative data and analysis. We judge that this improves the value of quantitative trials, and contributes to the future development of multi-method trials.</p&gt

Shaping the future for primary care education & training project. Education and training needs analysis (ETNA) toolkit: a resource kit and users’ guide

The Education and Training Needs Analysis (ETNA) Toolkit that has been developed as part of an inter university collaboration in the North West of England entitled the ‘Shaping the Future for Primary Care Education and Training’ project. The tool has been developed by the University of Bolton and Lancaster University in collaboration with key stakeholders including representatives from Primary Care Trusts and Social Services across the North Wes

Effect of a quality improvement programme on leadership, innovation and use of quality improvement methods in general practice

Introduction Market mechanisms and pay-for-performance have failed to deliver continuing improvements in UK clinical care. Leadership and innovation are currently seen as essential to maintain and improve clinical quality but little is known about the relationship between these and the extent to which quality improvement (QI) methods are used in general practice. This study aimed to investigate the effect of quality improvement training on leadership behaviour, culture of innovation and adoption of QI methods in general practice. Method Self-administered postal questionnaires were sent to general practitioner quality leads in one UK county at the beginning (2007) and the end (2010) of a QI programme. The questionnaire consisted of background demographic information, a 12-item scale to assess leadership behaviour, a seven-dimension self-rating scale for innovation culture and questions on current use of quality improvement techniques and the effect of this on practice. We analysed change between the two surveys and the effect of participation in QI training. Results Sixty-three completed questionnaires (62%) were returned in 2007 and 47 (46%) in 2010; 32 practices completed both surveys. Although leadership behaviours were not commonly expressed, many practices reported a positive culture of innovation with significant positive correlation between leadership and innovation (r = 0.57; P < 0.001); apart from clinical audit and significant event analysis, QI methods were not reported as having been adopted by most participating practices. Percentage leadership score changed little over three years (increase 4.0 points, 95%CI -8.9 to 16.9) with little difference between participating and non-participating practices (7.6, -6.4 to 21.6) and no evidence of differential change (-1.5, -17.0 to 14.0). Percentage innovation culture scores showed a similar pattern (time -4.1 points, -15.1 to 6.9, group -1.6, -12.7 to 9.4, differential change 5.3, -7.8 to 18.5). Conclusions Leadership behaviours were infrequently reported, and despite describing a culture of innovation there was low uptake of QI methods beyond clinical and significant event audit even after practices participated in a QI programme. There is evidence that practices may need greater support to enhance leadership competences and develop quality improvement skills to stimulate innovation if improvements in health care are to accelerate