In 2000 the English National Health Service (NHS) began a series of workforce redesign initiatives that increased the number of doctors and nurses serving patients, expanded existing staff roles and developed new ones, redistributed health care work, and invested in teamwork. The English workforce redesign experience offers important lessons for US policy makers. Redesigning the health care workforce is not a quick fix to control costs or improve the quality of care. A poorly planned redesign can even result in increased costs and decreased quality. Changes in skill mix and role definitions should be preceded by a detailed analysis and redesign of the work performed by health care professionals. New roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined in advance, and teamwork models that include factors common in successful redesigns such as leadership, shared objectives, and training should be promoted. The focus should be on retraining current staff instead of hiring new workers. Finally, any workforce redesign must overcome opposition from professional bodies, individual practitioners, and regulators. England's experience suggests that progress is possible if workforce redesigns are planned carefully and implemented with skill.

BackgroundOver the life of the NHS, hospital services have been subject to continued reconfiguration. Yet it is rare for the reconfiguration of clinical services to be evaluated, leaving a deficit in the evidence to guide local reconfiguration of services.ObjectivesThe objectives of this research are to determine the current pressures for reconfiguration within the NHS in England and the solutions proposed. We also investigate the quality of evidence used in making the case for change, any key evidence gaps, and the opportunities to strengthen the clinical case for change and how it is made.MethodsWe have drawn on two key sources of evidence. First, we reviewed the reports produced by the National Clinical Advisory Team (NCAT) documenting its reviews of reconfiguration proposals. An in-depth multilevel qualitative analysis was conducted of 123 NCAT reviews published between 2007 and 2012. Second, we carried out a search and synthesis of the literature to identify the key evidence available to support reconfiguration decisions. The findings from this literature search were integrated with the analysis of the reviews to develop a narrative for each specialty and the process of reconfiguration as a whole.ResultsThe evidence from the NCAT reviews shows significant pressure to reconfigure services within the NHS in England. We found that the majority of reconfiguration proposals are driving an increasing concentration of hospital services, with some accompanying decentralisation and, for some specialist services, the development of supporting clinical networks. The primary drivers of reconfiguration have been workforce (in particular the medical workforce) and finance. Improving outcomes and safety issues have been subsidiary drivers, though many make the link between staffing and clinical safety. Policy has also been a notable driver. Access has been notable by its absence as a driver. Despite significant pressures to reconfigure services, many proposals fail to be implemented owing to public and/or clinical opposition. We found strong evidence that some specialist service reconfiguration including vascular surgery and major trauma can significantly improve clinical outcomes. However, there are notable evidence gaps. The most significant is the absence of evidence that service reconfiguration can deliver significant savings. There is also an absence of evidence about safe staffing models and the interplay between staff numbers, skill mix and outcomes. We found that the advice provided by the NCAT reflects the current evidence, but one of the NCAT’s most valuable contributions has been to encourage greater clinical engagement in service change.ConclusionsThe NHS is continuing to concentrate many district general hospital services to resolve financial and workforce pressures. However, many proposals are not implemented owing to public opposition. We also found no evidence to suggest that this will deliver the savings anticipated. There is a significant gap in the evidence about safe staffing models and the appropriate balance of junior and senior medical as well as other clinical staff. There is an urgent need to carry out research that will help to fill the current evidence gap. There is also a need to retain some national clinical expertise to work alongside Clinical Senates in supporting local service reconfiguration.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The reconfi guration of hospital services: is there evidence to guide us?Many argue that the solution to the NHS's quality and fi nancial problems lies in the continuing reconfi guration and centralisation of hospital services. However, an ageing population requires good local access to care. This paper reviews the evidence that is available to help guide the reconfi guration of hospital services. The quality overall is poor and, in particular, there is little evidence that reconfi guring hospital services results in fi nancial savings. For acute medical care, there is strong evidence both for enhanced direct and early consultant involvement, and for the importance of comprehensive supporting services. Clinical networks and new technologies may offer opportunities to sustain local access but more evidence is needed to guide network development and to ensure safe but sustainable medical staffi ng models.

Background The increasing number of older, complex patients who require emergency admission to hospital has prompted calls for better models of medical generalist care, especially for smaller hospitals, whose size constrains resources and staffing. Objective To investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the current models of medical generalism used in smaller hospitals from patient, professional and service perspectives. Methods The design was a mixed-methods study. Phase 1 was a scoping and mapping exercise to create a typology of models of care, which was then explored further through 11 case studies. Phase 2 created a classification using the Hospital Episode Statistics of acute medical ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ work and described differences in workload and explored the links between case mix, typology and length of stay and between case mix and skill mix. Phase 3 analysed the relationships between models of care and patient-level costs. Phase 4 examined the strengths and weaknesses of the models of care through focus groups, a discrete choice experiment and an exploration of the impact of typology on other outcomes. Results In total, 50 models of care were explored through 48 interviews. A typology was constructed around generalist versus specialist patterns of consultant working. Twenty-five models were deployed by 48 hospitals, and no more than four hospitals used any one model of care. From the patient perspective, analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data of 1.9 million care episodes found that the differences in case mix between hospitals were relatively small, with 65–70% of episodes accounted for by 20 case types. The skill mix of hospital staff varied widely; there were no relationships with case mix. Patients exhibited a preference for specialist care in the discrete choice experiment but indicated in focus groups that overall hospital quality was more important. From a service perspective, qualitative work found that models of care were contingent on complex constellations of factors, including staffing, the local hospital environment and policy imperatives. Neither the model of care nor the case mix accounted for variability in the length of stay (no associations were significant at p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the costs of the models. Professionally, the preferences of doctors for specialist versus generalist work depended on their experiences of providing care and were associated with a healthy organisational culture and a co-operative approach to managing emergency work. Concepts of medical generalism were found to be complex and difficult to define, with theoretical models differing markedly from models in action. Limitations Smaller hospitals in multisite trusts were excluded, potentially leading to sample bias. The rapidly changing nature of the models limited the analysis of typology against outcomes. Conclusions The case mix of smaller hospitals was dominated by patients with presentations amenable to generalist approaches to care; however, there was no evidence to support any particular pattern of consultant working. Matching hospital staff to better meet local need and the creation of more collaborative working environments appear more likely to improve care in smaller hospitals than changing models. Future work The exploration of the relationships between workforce, measures of hospital culture, models of care, costs and outcomes in both smaller and larger hospitals is urgently required to underpin service reforms. Study registration This study is registered as Integrated Research Application System project ID 191393. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Next week, the BMJ and The King’s Fund will hold a debate asking if doctors have neglected their duty to lead the NHS. Candace Imison and Richard W Giordano describe the importance of doctors as leaders