Search results

Following publication of a new vision for the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2014, known as the NHS Five-Year Forward View, a Vanguard programme was introduced by NHS England charged with the task of designing and delivering a range of new care models (NCMs) aimed at tackling deep-seated problems of a type facing all health systems to a greater or lesser degree. Drawing upon recent theoretical developments on the multilevel nature of context, we explore factors shaping the implementation of five NCM initiatives in the North East of England.

Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews (66 in total) between December 2016 and May 2017 with key informants at each site and a detailed review of Trusts' internal documents and policies related to the implementation of each NCM. Our analysis explores factors shaping the implementation of five NCM pilot sites as they touched on the multiple levels of context ranging from the macro policy level to the micro-level setting of workforce redesign.

It is far too early to conclude with any confidence that a successful outcome for the NCM programme will be forthcoming although the NHS Long-Term Plan seeks to build on the earlier vision set out in the Five-Year Forward View. Early indications show some signs of promise, especially where there is evidence of the ground having been prepared and changes already being put in place prior to the official launch of NCM initiatives. At the same time our findings demonstrate that all five pilot sites experienced, and were subject to, unrealistic pressure placed upon them to deliver outcomes.

Our findings demonstrate the need for a deeper understanding of the multilevel nature of context by exploring factors shaping the implementation of five NCMs in the North East of England. Exploring the wider national policy context is desirable as well as understanding the perceptions of front-line staff and service users in order to establish the degree of alignment or, conversely, to identify where policy and practice are at risk of pushing and pulling against each other.

There has been significant investment in NHS research and development aimed at strengthening the knowledge base of decision‐making. But evidence‐based health care is no panacea. What is effective or ineffective is vigorously contested. Nor does evidence‐based decision‐making offer a tidy solution to matters of a more sensitive political nature. In particular, it is not a solution to the rationing dilemma.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a bold and ambitious scheme known as the North East transformation system (NETS). The principal aim of the NETS is the achievement of a step-change in the quality of health services delivered to people living in the North East region of England. The paper charts the origins of the NETS and its early journey before describing what happened to it when the UK coalition government published its proposals for unexpected major structural change in the NHS. This had a profound impact on the leadership and direction of the NETS and resulted in it taking a different direction from that intended.

The research design took the form of a mixed methods, longitudinal 3.5-year study aimed at exploring transformational change in terms of content, context, process and outcomes. The sample of study sites comprised 14 NHS trusts in the North East region chosen to provide geographical coverage of the area and to reflect the scale, scope and variety of the bodies that formed part of the NETS programme. The qualitative component of the research, which the paper draws upon, included 68 semi-structured interviews, observational studies and focus groups. Data analysis made use of both deductive and inductive frameworks. The deductive framework adopted was Pettigrew et al.’s “receptive contexts for change” and four of the eight factors stood out as especially important and form the basis of the paper.

The fate of the NETS was shaped and influenced by the eight factors comprising the Pettigrew et al. receptive contexts for change framework but four factors in particular stood out as being especially significant: environmental pressure, quality and coherence of policy, key people leading change, supportive organisational culture. Perhaps the most significant lesson from the NETS is that achieving whole systems change is particularly vulnerable to the vicissitudes of politics especially where that system, like the UK NHS, is itself subject to those very same pressures. Yet, despite having an enormous influence on health policy, the political context is frequently avoided in research or not regarded as instrumental in determining the outcomes in respect of transformational change.

The chief limitation is the credibility and authenticity of the interviews captured at particular points in time. These formed the datebase for subsequent analysis. The authors sought to guard against possible bias by supplementing interviews with observational studies and focus groups as well as running two dissemination events at which emerging findings from the study were subjected to independent external scrutiny and comment. These events provided a form of validation for the key study findings.

The research findings demonstrate the importance of context for the likely outcome and success of complex transformational change initiatives. These require time to become embedded and demonstrate results especially when focused on changing culture and behaviour. But, in practice, allowing sufficient time during which the organisation may remain sufficiently stable to allow the change intervention to run its course and become embedded and sustainable is highly problematic. The consequence is that bold and ambitious efforts like the NETS are not given the space and stability to prove themselves. Too often, politics and external environmental pressures intrude in ways that may prove dysfunctional and negative.

Unless a different approach to transformational change and its leadership and management is adopted, then changing the NHS to enable it to appear more responsive to changing health care needs and expectations will remain a cause for concern. Ultimately the public will be the losers if the NHS remains insensitive to changing needs and expectations. The patient experience was at the centre of the NETS programme.

The study is original insofar as no other has sought to evaluate the NETS independently and over a reasonable time period. The research design, based on a mixed-methods approach, is unusual in evaluations of this nature. The study’s conclusions are not so original but their value lies in largely confirming and reinforcing the findings from other studies. It perhaps goes further in stressing the impact of politics on health policy and the negative consequences of constant organisational change on attempts to achieve deep change in the way the NHS is organised and led.

The purpose of this paper is to present a co‐authored reflection on the health improvement leadership development programme and the key evaluation messages derived from piloting in an English National Health Service region. It highlights the specific attributes of this approach to health improvement leadership development and clarifies health improvement development issues.

Appreciative inquiry and soft systems methodology are combined in an evaluation approach designed to capture individual as well as organisation learning and how it impacts on leadership in specific contexts.

The evaluation exposes the health improvement leadership needs of a multi‐organisation cohort, offers some explanations for successful achievement of learning needs while also exposing of the challenges and paradoxes faced in this endeavour.

There are limited reported templates of how to develop leadership for health improvement. This paper details a whole systems approach, acknowledging the impact of context on leadership and an approach to evaluating such complex initiatives.

A summary of the project examining the impact of general management on the NHS, based on field work in England and Scotland between 1986‐1989. Implications of further change and clinical audit are discussed.

Improving the nation′s health is a major challenge. It has a long history within the specialty of public health medicine, with its commitment to knowledge and action. But achieving a balance between these activities has been a source of considerable tension within the specialty. The commissioning function, with its related dimensions of purchasing and contracting, provides the best chance for decades of aligning public health knowledge with the action that can produce health improvement. The concept of public health management seeks to bridge knowledge and action, drawing on a range of skills. But there is a long way to go before the necessary skills and capacities are demonstrated in practice. The organizational and personal development agenda remains very large. Yet, what is occurring in the NHS has not been achieved anywhere in the world. Describes one practical approach to strategic health development and commissioning. But it will require sustained commitment if it is to succeed.

A new international orthodoxy has developed on health sector reform. The dominant theme of the orthodoxy is the alleged benefits of market style reforms for health development. This is shaping changes formulated, and being implemented, in the British NHS and other European health services (including Central and Eastern Europe), Latin America and a number of developing health systems in Africa and Asia. Sets out a ten‐point description of the orthodoxy. Contends that the orthodoxy is showing distinct signs of restricting the analysis and development of health management and planning. This is a matter for considerable concern as the adoption of market‐style reforms can generate unforeseen and, in some cases, negative consequences. There is clearly a need for strengthening management research and development as a basis for effective health sector reform.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what happens when changes to clinical practice are proposed and introduced in healthcare organisations. The authors use the implementation of Treatment Escalation Plans to explore the dynamics shaping the translational journey of a complex intervention from research into the everyday context of real-world healthcare settings.

A qualitative instrumental collective case study design was used. Data were gathered using qualitative interviews (n = 36) and observations (n = 46) in three English acute hospital trusts. Normalisation process theory provided the theoretical lens and informed data collection and analysis.

While each organisation faced the same translational problem, there was variation between settings regarding adoption and implementation. Successful change was dependent on participants' ability to manage and shape contexts and the work this involved was reliant on individual capacity to create a new, receptive context for change. Managing contexts to facilitate the move from research into clinical practice was a complex interactive and iterative process.

The paper advocates a move away from contextual factors influencing change and adoption, to contextual patterns and processes that accommodate different elements of whole systems and the work required to manage and shape them.

The paper addresses important and timely issues of change in healthcare, particularly for new regulatory and service-oriented processes and practices. Insights and explanations of variations in implementation are revealed which could contribute to conceptual generalisation of context and implementation.