Using a Stages Model to Reveal the Politics in the Health Policy Process Comment on "Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses?"

Models of the health policy process have largely developed in isolation from political studies more widely. Of the models which Powell and Mannion’s editorial considers, a stages model of the policy process offers a framework for combining these specifically health-focused models with empirical findings and more general explanatory models of the policy process drawn from other political studies. This commentary uses a stages model to assemble a bricolage which combines some of these components. That identifies a further research task and suggests ways of revealing in more life-like ways the politics involved in the health policy process: that is, how that process channels wider, often conflicting, non-health interests, actors, policies, conflicts, ideologies and sources of power from outside the health system into health policy formation, and introduces non-rationality

Evaluating a dementia learning community: exploratory study and research implications

Background  Access times for, the costs and overload of hospital services are an increasingly salient issue for healthcare managers in many countries. Rising demand for hospital care has been attributed partly to unplanned admissions for older people, and among these partly to the increasing prevalence of dementia. The paper makes a preliminary evaluation of the logic model of a Dementia Learning Community (DLC) intended to reduce unplanned hospital admissions from care homes of people with dementia. A dementia champion in each DLC care home trained other staff in dementia awareness and change management with the aims of changing work routines, improving quality of life, and reducing demands on external services.  Methods  Controlled mixed methods realistic evaluation comparing 13 intervention homes with 10 controls in England during 2013–15. Each link in the assumed logic model was tested to find whether that link appeared to exist in the DLC sites, and if so whether its effects appeared greater there than in control sites, in terms of selected indicators of quality of life (DCM Well/Ill-Being, QUALID, end-of-life planning); and impacts on ambulance call-outs and hospital admissions.  Results  The training was implemented as planned, and triggered cycles of Plan-Do-Study-Act activity in all the intervention care homes. Residents’ well-being scores, measured by dementia care mapping, improved markedly in half of the intervention homes but not in the other half, where indeed some scores deteriorated markedly. Most other care quality indicators studied did not significantly improve during the study period. Neither did ambulance call-out or emergency hospital admission rates.  Conclusions  PDSA cycles appeared to be the more ‘active ingredient’ in this intervention. The reasons why they impacted on well-being in half of the intervention sites, and not the others, require further research. A larger, longer study would be necessary to measure definitively any impacts on unplanned hospital admissions. Our evidence suggested revising the DLC logic model to include care planning and staff familiarisation with residents’ personal histories and needs as steps towards improving residents’ quality of life

Achieving Integrated Care for Older People: What Kind of Ship? Comment on “Achieving Integrated Care for Older People: Shuffling the Deckchairs or Making the System Watertight for the Future?”

Abstract This paper considers an implication of the idea that proposals for integrated care for older people should start from a focus on the patient, consider co-production solutions to the problems of care fragmentation, and be at a system-wide, cross-organisational level. It follows that the analysis, design and therefore evaluation of integrated care projects should be based upon the journeys which older patients with multiple chronic conditions usually have to make from professional to professional and service to service. A systematic realistic review of recent research on integrated care projects identified a number of key mechanisms for care integration, including multidisciplinary care teams, care planning, suitable IT support and changes to organisational culture, besides other activities and contexts which assist care ‘integration.’ Those findings suggest that bringing the diverse services that older people with multiple chronic conditions need into a single organisation would remove many of the inter-organisational boundaries that impede care ‘integration’ and make it easier to address the interprofessional and inter-service boundaries

Commodification and healthcare in the third sector in England: from gift to commodity – and back?

When publicly-funded services are outsourced, governments still use multiple governance structures to retain some control over the services provided. Using realist methods the authors systematically compared this aspect of community health activities provided by third sector organizations in six English localities during 2020–2022. Two modes of commissioning coexisted. Commodified commissioning largely embodied Washington consensus models of formal, competitive procurement. A contrasting, collaborative mode of commissioning relied more upon relational, long-term co-operation and networking among organizations. When the two modes conflicted, commissioners often favoured the collaborative mode and sought to adjust their commissioning to make it less commodified

Repositioning the Boundaries between Public and Private Healthcare Providers in the English NHS

Background and Objectives: Neoliberal ‘reform’ has in many countries shifted services across the boundary between the public and private sector. This policy re-opens the question of what structural and managerial differences, if any, differences of ownership make to healthcare providers. This paper examines the relationships between ownership, organisational structure and managerial regime within an elaboration of Donabedian’s reasoning about organisational structures. Using new data from England it considers: 1. How do the internal managerial g regimes of differently owned healthcare providers differ, or not? 2. In what respects did any such differences arise from differences in ownership or for other reasons? Methods: An observational systematic qualitative comparison of differently-owned providers was the strongest feasible research design. We systematically compared a maximum-variety sample (by ownership) of community health services (CHS); out-of-hours primary care (OOH); hospital planned orthopaedics and ophthalmology providers (N=12 cases). The framework of comparison was the ownership theory mentioned above. Findings: The relationships between ownership (one one hand) and organisation structures and managerial regimes (on the other), differed at different organisational levels. Top-level governance structures diverged by organisational ownership and objectives among the case-study organisations. All the case-study organisations irrespective of ownership had hierarchical, bureaucratic structures and managerial regimes for coordinating everyday service production, but to differing extents. In doctor-owned organisations the doctors’, but not other occupations’, work was controlled and coordinated in a more-or-less democratic, self-governing ways. Conclusion: Ownership does make important differences to healthcare providers’ top-level governance structures and accountabilities; and to work coordination activity, but with different patterns at different organisational levels. These findings have implications for understanding the legitimacy, governance and accountability of healthcare organisations, the distribution and use of power within them, and system-wide policy interventions, for instance to improve care coordination; and for the correspondingly required foci of healthcare organisational research

From programme theory to logic models for multispecialty community providers: a realist evidence synthesis

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesTo 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.DesignRealist 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 sourcesSystematic 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.ResultsThe 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.LimitationsThe 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.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary 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.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038900.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula

Engaging stakeholders in realist programme theory building: insights from the prospective phase of a primary care dementia support study

‘Dementia - Personalised Care Team’ (D-PACT) is a five-year NIHR funded programme, using realist methods to develop and evaluate a complex, person-centred intervention for people with dementia and their carers. During the early project stages, we engaged with multiple stakeholders, including people with dementia and their carers, to develop an initial programme theory (IPT) – into an elaborated programme theory (EPT), by helping to uncover intervention mechanisms leading to outcomes in specific contexts. Realist research methods for developing programme theories are under-reported. In addition, there is a paucity of practical guidance on how to engage underserved and vulnerable populations in complex interventions programme theory development. We attend to these gaps, providing a worked example of how we meaningfully engaged people living with dementia and carers, alongside field experts, as stakeholders in this process. Our IPT theory building included multi-stakeholder primary research exercises and meetings with PPI contributors and an Expert Reference Group. We adapted interview schedules, and used visual resources and scenario-based activities, to support stakeholders to think in a ‘realist’ way. Using realist and thematic analyses led to hypothesis-building of causal mechanisms. Sharing findings with stakeholders led to further refinement of the intervention design, ready for testing in a subsequent feasibility study. We found that, despite the cognitive challenges associated with dementia, innovative methods of engagement can enable this stakeholder group to understand the realist approach and provide a platform through which to share their experiences. Taking a highly flexible and unhurried approach, led to novel insights into the complexities of person-centred dementia support. We argue for more detailed methodological guidance, based on realist principles, on how to collaborate with underrepresented populations to rigorously gain insights as to what is likely to make a difference and refine initial programme theory

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

A Qualitative Exploration of Patient and Staff Experiences of the Receipt and Delivery of Specialist Weight Management Services in the UK

Background Addressing the increasing prevalence of obesity is a global public health priority. Severe obesity (body mass index > 40) reduces life expectancy, due to its association with people developing complications (e.g. diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease), and greatly impairs quality of life. The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK provides specialist weight management services (SWMS) for people with severe obesity, but key uncertainties remain around patient access to and engagement with weight management services, as well as pathways beyond the service. Methods In this multiple methods study, using online forum data and semi-structured interviews, stakeholders’ experiences of delivering and receiving SWMS were explored. Using the web search engine Google with keywords and web address (URL) identifiers, relevant public online platforms were sourced with snowball sampling and search strings used to identify threads related to people’s experiences of accessing SWMS (n = 57). Interviews were conducted with 24 participants (nine patients, 15 staff), and data from all sources were analysed thematically using the framework approach. Results Six themes related to access to and engagement with SWMS emerged during data analysis: (1) making the first move, (2) uncertainty and confusion, (3) resource issues, (4) respect and understanding, (5) mode of delivery, and (6) desire for ongoing support. Conclusion There is a mixed and varied picture of SWMS provision across the UK. The service offered is based on local clinical decision making and available resources, resulting in a range of patient experiences and perspectives. Whilst service capacity issues and patient anxiety were seen as barriers to accessing care, peer support and positive clinical and group interactions (connectedness between individuals) were considered to increase engagement

How can frontline expertise and new models of care best contribute to safely reducing avoidable acute admissions? A mixed-methods study of four acute hospitals

BackgroundHospital emergency admissions have risen annually, exacerbating pressures on emergency departments (EDs) and acute medical units. These pressures have an adverse impact on patient experience and potentially lead to suboptimal clinical decision-making. In response, a variety of innovations have been developed, but whether or not these reduce inappropriate admissions or improve patient and clinician experience is largely unknown.AimsTo investigate the interplay of service factors influencing decision-making about emergency admissions, and to understand how the medical assessment process is experienced by patients, carers and practitioners.MethodsThe project used a multiple case study design for a mixed-methods analysis of decision-making about admissions in four acute hospitals. The primary research comprised two parts: value stream mapping to measure time spent by practitioners on key activities in 108 patient pathways, including an embedded study of cost; and an ethnographic study incorporating data from 65 patients, 30 carers and 282 practitioners of different specialties and levels. Additional data were collected through a clinical panel, learning sets, stakeholder workshops, reading groups and review of site data and documentation. We used a realist synthesis approach to integrate findings from all sources.FindingsPatients’ experiences of emergency care were positive and they often did not raise concerns, whereas carers were more vocal. Staff’s focus on patient flow sometimes limited time for basic care, optimal communication and shared decision-making. Practitioners admitted or discharged few patients during the first hour, but decision-making increased rapidly towards the 4-hour target. Overall, patients’ journey times were similar, although waiting before being seen, for tests or after admission decisions, varied considerably. The meaning of what constituted an ‘admission’ varied across sites and sometimes within a site. Medical and social complexity, targets and ‘bed pressure’, patient safety and risk, each influenced admission/discharge decision-making. Each site responded to these pressures with different initiatives designed to expedite appropriate decision-making. New ways of using hospital ‘space’ were identified. Clinical decision units and observation wards allow potentially dischargeable patients with medical and/or social complexity to be ‘off the clock’, allowing time for tests, observation or safe discharge. New teams supported admission avoidance: an acute general practitioner service filtered patients prior to arrival; discharge teams linked with community services; specialist teams for the elderly facilitated outpatient treatment. Senior doctors had a range of roles: evaluating complex patients, advising and training juniors, and overseeing ED activity.ConclusionsThis research shows how hospitals under pressure manage complexity, safety and risk in emergency care by developing ‘ground-up’ initiatives that facilitate timely, appropriate and safe decision-making, and alternative care pathways for lower-risk, ambulatory patients. New teams and ‘off the clock’ spaces contribute to safely reducing avoidable admissions; frontline expertise brings value not only by placing senior experienced practitioners at the front door of EDs, but also by using seniors in advisory roles. Although the principal limitation of this research is its observational design, so that causation cannot be inferred, its strength is hypothesis generation. Further research should test whether or not the service and care innovations identified here can improve patient experience of acute care and safely reduce avoidable admissions.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project number 10/1010/06). This research was supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula