Exploring whether primary care networks can contribute to the national goal of reducing health inequalities: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Significant health inequalities exist in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), comprised of GP practices, were introduced in England in 2019 with funding linked to membership. PCNs have been tasked with tackling health inequalities. AIM: To consider how the design and introduction of PCNs might influence their ability to tackle health inequalities. DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential mixed-methods study of PCNs in England. METHOD: Linear regression of annual PCN-allocated funding per workload-weighted patient on income deprivation score from 2019-2023 was used. Qualitative interviews and observations of PCNs and PCN staff were undertaken across seven PCN sites in England (July 2020-March 2022). RESULTS: Across 1243 networks in 2019-2020, a 10% higher level of income deprivation resulted in £0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] = £0.25 to £0.37), 4.50%, less funding per weighted patient. In 2022-2023, the same difference in deprivation resulted in £0.16 (95% CI = £0.11 to £0.21), 0.60%, more funding. Qualitative interviews highlighted that, although there were requirements for PCNs to tackle health inequalities, the policy design, and PCN internal relationships and maturity, shaped and sometimes restricted how PCNs approached this task locally. CONCLUSION: Allocated PCN funding has become more pro-poor over time, suggesting that the need to account for deprivation within funding models is understood by policymakers. The following additional approaches have been highlighted that could support PCNs to tackle inequalities: better management support; encouragement and support to redistribute funding internally to support practices serving more deprived populations; and greater specificity in service requirements.

Implementing the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme in seven English Primary Care Networks: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) provides funding to Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in England to recruit additional staff into specified roles. The intention was to support general practice by recruiting an extra 26 000 staff by 2024, increasing access and easing workload pressures. AIM: To explore the establishment of the ARRS as part of PCNs' development to understand their role in supporting general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A longitudinal, qualitative case study involving seven geographically dispersed PCNs across England. METHOD: Data were collected from July 2020 to March 2022, including 91 semi-structured interviews and 87 h of meeting observations. Transcripts were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Implementation of the ARRS was variable across the study sites, but most shared similar experiences and concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the introduction of the new roles, and significant variability was found in modes of employment. Cross-cutting issues included: the need for additional space to accommodate new staff; the inflexibility of aspects of the scheme, including reinvestment of unspent funds; and the need for support and oversight of employed staff. Perceived benefits of the ARRS include improved patient care and the potential to save GP time. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest the ARRS has potential to fulfil its objective of supporting and improving access to general practice. However, attention to operational requirements including appropriate funding, estates, and management of staff is important if this is to be realised, as is clarity for the scheme post-contract end in 2024.

Primary care networks as a means of supporting primary care: findings from qualitative case study-based evaluation in the English NHS.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate primary care networks (PCNs) in the English National Health Service. We ask: How are PCNs constituted to meet their defined goals? What factors can be discerned as affecting their ability to deliver benefits to the community, the network as a whole and individual members? What outcomes or outputs are associated with PCNs so far? We draw policy lessons for PCN design and oversight, and consider the utility of the chosen evaluative framework. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative case studies in seven PCN in England, chosen for maximum variety around geography, rurality and population deprivation. Study took place between May 2019 and December 2022. PARTICIPANTS: PCN members, staff employed in additional roles and local managers. Ninety-one semistructured interviews and approximately 87 hours of observations were undertaken remotely. Interview transcripts and observational field notes were analysed together using a framework approach. Initial codes were derived from our evaluation framework, with inductive coding of new concepts during the analysis. RESULTS: PCNs have been successfully established across England, with considerable variation in structure and operation. Progress is variable, with a number of factors affecting this. Good managerial support was helpful for PCN development. The requirement to work together to meet the specific threat of the global pandemic did, in many cases, generate a virtuous cycle by which the experience of working together built trust and legitimacy. The internal dynamics of networks require attention. Pre-existing strong relationships provided a significant advantage. While policy cannot legislate to create such relationships, awareness of their presence/absence is important. CONCLUSIONS: Networked approaches to service delivery are popular in many health systems. Our use of an explicit evaluation framework supports the extrapolation of our findings to networks elsewhere. We found the framework to be useful in structuring our study but suggest some modifications for future use.

Exploring commissioners' understandings of early primary care network development: qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care networks (PCNs) are financially incentivised groupings of general practices in the English NHS. Their purpose is to deliver a number of policy goals set out in The NHS Long Term Plan. Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have a role in their establishment, support, and oversight. AIM: To explore commissioners' perspectives on the early development of PCNs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of CCG staff using telephone interviews. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 37 CCG employees involved in PCN establishment. Interviewees were asked about local PCNs' characteristics, factors shaping development and form, activities to date, challenges and benefits, and their CCGs' relationship with PCNs. Interviewee responses were summarised within a matrix and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three meta-themes were identified: the multifaceted role of the commissioner, tensions between PCN policy and locally commissioned services, and engaging the broader system. Interviewees reported that the policy potentially favours those PCNs working from a 'blank slate' and does not sufficiently account for the fact some GP practices and wider system organisations have been doing similar work already. The prescriptive, contractual nature of the policy has led to local challenges, trying to ensure that local good practices are not lost during implementation. Interviewees also considered an important part of their work to be protecting PCNs from the weight of expectations placed on them. CONCLUSION: CCGs are well placed to understand the complexities of local systems and to facilitate PCNs and working practices between wider system partners. It is important that this local role is not lost as CCGs continue to merge and cover larger geographical populations.

Exploring the multiple policy objectives for primary care networks: a qualitative interview study with national policy stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: English general practice is suffering a workforce crisis, with general practitioners retiring early and trainees reluctant to enter the profession. To address this, additional funding has been offered, but only through participation in collaborations known as primary care networks (PCNs). This study explored national policy objectives underpinning PCNs and the mechanisms expected to help achieve these, from the perspective of those driving the policy. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews and policy document analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: National-level policy maker and stakeholder interviewees (n=16). Policy document analysis of the Network Contract Direct Enhanced Service draft service specifications. ANALYSIS: Interviews were transcribed, coded and organised thematically according to policy objectives and mechanisms. Thematic data were organised into a matrix so prominent elements can be identified and emphasised accordingly. Themes were considered alongside objectives embedded in PCN draft service delivery requirements. RESULTS: Three themes of policy objectives and associated mechanisms were identified: (1) supporting general practice, (2) place-based interorganisational collaboration and (3) primary care 'voice'. Interviewees emphasised and sequenced themes differently, suggesting meeting objectives for one was necessary to realise another. Interviewees most closely linked to primary care emphasised the importance of theme 1. The objectives embedded in draft service delivery requirements primarily emphasised theme 2. CONCLUSIONS: These policy objectives are not mutually exclusive but may imply different approaches to prioritising investment or necessitate more explicit temporal sequencing, with the stabilisation of a struggling primary care sector probably needing to occur before meaningful engagement with other community service providers can be achieved or a 'collective voice' is agreed. Multiple objectives create space for stakeholders to feel dissatisfied when implementation details do not match expectations, as the negative reaction to draft service delivery requirements illustrates. Our study offers policy makers suggestions about how confidence in the policy might be restored by crafting delivery requirements so all groups see opportunities to meet favoured objectives.

Exploring the impacts of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act reforms to commissioning on clinical activity in the English NHS: a mixed methods study of cervical screening.

OBJECTIVES: Explore the impact of changes to commissioning introduced in England by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) on cervical screening activity in areas identified empirically as particularly affected organisationally by the reforms. METHODS: Qualitative followed by quantitative methods. Qualitative: semi-structured interviews (with NHS commissioners, managers, clinicians, senior administrative staff from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), local authorities, service providers), observations of commissioning meetings in two metropolitan areas of England. Quantitative: triple-difference analysis of national administrative data. Variability in the expected effects of HSCA on commissioning was measured by comparing CCGs working with one local authority with CCGs working with multiple local authorities. To control for unmeasured confounders, differential changes over time in cervical screening rates (among women, 25-64 years) between CCGs more and less likely to have been affected by HSCA commissioning organisational change were compared with another outcome-unassisted birth rates-largely unaffected by HSCA changes. RESULTS: Interviewees identified that cervical screening commissioning and provision was more complex and 'fragmented', with responsibilities less certain, following the HSCA. Interviewees predicted this would reduce cervical screening rates in some areas more than others. Quantitative findings supported these predictions. Areas where CCGs dealt with multiple local authorities experienced a larger decline in cervical screening rates (1.4%) than those dealing with one local authority (1.0%). Over the same period, unassisted deliveries decreased by 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arrangements for commissioning and delivering cervical screening were disrupted and made more complex by the HSCA. Areas most affected saw a greater decline in screening rates than others. The fact that this was identified qualitatively and then confirmed quantitatively strengthens this finding. The study suggests large-scale health system reforms may have unintended consequences, and that complex commissioning arrangements may be problematic.

Achieving integrated care through commissioning of primary care services in the English NHS: a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Since April 2015, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have taken on the responsibility to commission primary care services. The aim of this paper is to analyse how CCGs have responded to this new responsibility and to identify challenges and factors that facilitated or inhibited achievement of integrated care systems. DESIGN: We undertook an exploratory approach, combining data from interviews and national telephone surveys, with analysis of policy documents and case studies in four CCGs. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 147 CCG application documents and conducted two national telephone surveys with CCGs (n=49 and n=21). We interviewed 6 senior policymakers and 42 CCG staff who were involved in primary care co-commissioning (general practitioners and managers). We observed 74 primary care commissioning committee meetings and their subgroups (approx. 111 hours). RESULTS: CCGs in our case studies focused their primary care commissioning activities on developing strategic plans, 'new' primary care initiatives, and dealing with legacy work. Many plans focused on incentivising and supporting practices to work together and provide a broad range of services. There was a clear focus on ensuring the sustainability of general practice. Our respondents expressed mixed views as to what new collaborative service models, such as the new models of care and sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs), would mean for the future of primary care and the impact they could have on CCGs and their members. CONCLUSIONS: There is a disconnect between locally based primary care and the wider system. One of the major challenges we identified is the lack of knowledge and expertise in the field of primary care at STP level. While primary care commissioning by CCGs seems to be supporting local collaborations between practices, there is some way to go before this is translated into broader integration initiatives across wider footprints.

Beyond the parish pump: what next for public health?

BACKGROUND: Public health has had a history characterised by uncertainty of purpose, locus of control, and workforce identity. In many health systems, the public health function is fragmented, isolated and under-resourced. We use the most recent major reforms to the English National Health Service and local government, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA12), as a lens through which to explore the changing nature of public health professionalism. METHODS: This paper is based upon a 3-year longitudinal study into the impacts of the HSCA12 upon the commissioning system in England, in which we conducted 141 interviews with 118 commissioners and senior staff from a variety of health service commissioner and provider organisations, local government, and the third sector. For the present paper, we developed a subset of data relevant to public health, and analysed it using a framework derived from the literature on public health professionalism, exploring themes identified from relevant policy documents and research. RESULTS: The move of public health responsibilities into local government introduced an element of politicisation which challenged public health professional autonomy. There were mixed feelings about the status of public health as a specialist profession. The creation of a national public health organisation helped raise the profile of profession, but there were concerns about clarity of responsibilities, accountability, and upholding 'pure' public health professional values. There was confusion about the remit of other organisations in relation to public health. CONCLUSIONS: Where public health professionals sit in a health system in absolute terms is less important than their ability to develop relationships, negotiate their roles, and provide expert public health influence across that system. A conflation between 'population health' and 'public health' fosters unrealistic expectations of the profession. Public health may be best placed to provide leadership for other stakeholders and professional groups working towards improving health outcomes of their defined populations, but there remains a need to clarify the role(s) that public health as a specialist profession has to play in helping to fulfil population health goals.

Integrated care.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to try and understand how several organisations in one area in England are working together to develop an integrated care programme. Weick's (1995) concept of sensemaking is used as a lens to examine how the organisations are working collaboratively and maintaining the programme. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative methods included: non-participant observations of meetings, interviews with key stakeholders and the collection of documents relating to the programme. These provided wider contextual information about the programme. Comprehensive field notes were taken during observations and analysed alongside interview transcriptions using NVIVO software. Findings This paper illustrates the importance of the construction of a shared identity across all organisations involved in the programme. Furthermore, the wider policy discourse impacted on how the programme developed and influenced how organisations worked together. Originality/value The role of leaders from all organisations involved in the programme was of significance to the overall development of the programme and the sustained momentum behind the programme. Leaders were able to generate a "narrative of success" to drive the programme forward. This is of particular relevance to evaluators, highlighting the importance of using multiple methods to allow researchers to probe beneath the surface of programmes to ensure that evidence moves beyond this public narrative.

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services. DESIGN: We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning. RESULTS: Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein. CONCLUSIONS: Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.