Merger and post-merger integration at Oxford University Hospitals: mixed-methods evaluation and lessons learned.

PURPOSE: Hospital mergers are common in the United Kingdom and internationally. However, mergers rarely achieve their intended benefits and are often damaging. This study builds on existing literature by presenting a case study evaluating a merger of two hospitals in Oxford, United Kingdom with three distinct characteristics: merger between two university hospitals, merger between a generalist and specialist hospital and merger between two hospitals of differing size. In doing so, the study draws practical lessons for other healthcare organisations. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Mixed-methods single-case evaluation. Qualitative data from 19 individual interviews and three focus groups were analysed thematically, using constant comparison to synthesise and interpret findings. Qualitative data were triangulated with quantitative clinical and financial data. To maximise research value, the study was co-created with practitioners. FINDINGS: The merger was a relative success with mixed improvement in clinical performance and strong improvement in financial and organisational performance. The merged organisation received an improved inspection rating, became debt-free and achieved Foundation Trust status. The study draws six lessons relating to the contingencies that can make mergers a success: (1) Develop a strong clinical rationale, (2) Communicate the change strategy widely and early, (3) Increase engagement and collaboration at all levels, (4) Be transparent and realistic about the costs and benefits, (5) Be sensitive to the feelings of the other organisation and (6) Integrate different organizational cultures effectively. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This case study provides empirical evidence on the outcome of merger in a university hospital setting. Despite the relatively positive outcome, there is no strong evidence that the benefits could not have been achieved without merger. Given that mergers remain prevalent worldwide, the practical lessons might be useful for other healthcare organisations considering merger.

Quality of life of Nepali patients with ear disease before and after corrective surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Hearing impairment is a significant burden in the developing world. However, no suitable quality of life (QoL) measures exist for use in Nepal. We aimed to amend and translate the Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI), assessing QoL at any given time, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), assessing change in QoL following intervention, into Nepali and to assess the impact of ear disease and effect of surgery on QoL. METHODS: The GHSI and GBI were translated into Nepali and independently verified. The GHSI was administered by interview to patients before surgery, and the GBI was administered 6 months after surgery. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: The GHSI was administered to 242 patients. In total, 205 had chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) without cholesteatoma and 37 had cholesteatoma. The mean GHSI score was 47.9. There was no significant difference in GHSI scores between patients with CSOM without cholesteatoma and those with cholesteatoma. The GBI was administered to 161 patients, 73 of whom had also been in the GHSI group. In total, 130 had CSOM without cholesteatoma, 31 had cholesteatoma. The mean GBI score was +38.4 with no significant difference between disease groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ear disease in Nepal is associated with reduced QoL, and surgical intervention is associated with improved QoL. There is no difference in QoL or benefit following surgery for CSOM between patients with or without cholesteatoma. There are few QoL measures suitable for the developing world. It is essential to invest in these measures to guide health interventions.