BackgroundThe Salford Integrated Care Programme (SICP) was a large-scale transformation project to improve care for older people with long-term conditions and social care needs. We report an evaluation of the ability of the SICP to deliver an enhanced experience of care, improved quality of life, reduced costs of care and improved cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo explore the process of implementation of the SICP and the impact on patient outcomes and costs.DesignQualitative methods (interviews and observations) to explore implementation, a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial to assess patient outcomes through quasi-experiments and a formal trial, and an analysis of routine data sets and appropriate comparators using non-randomised methodologies.SettingSalford in the north-west of England.ParticipantsOlder people aged ≥ 65 years, carers, and health and social care professionals.InterventionsA large-scale integrated care project with three core mechanisms of integration (community assets, multidisciplinary groups and an ‘integrated contact centre’).Main outcome measuresPatient self-management, care experience and quality of life, and health-care utilisation and costs.Data sourcesProfessional and patient interviews, patient self-report measures, and routine quantitative data on service utilisation.ResultsThe SICP and subsequent developments have been sustained by strong partnerships between organisations. The SICP achieved ‘functional integration’ through the pooling of health and social care budgets, the development of the Alliance Agreement between four organisations and the development of the shared care record. ‘Service-level’ integration was slow and engagement with general practice was a challenge. We saw only minor changes in patient experience measures over the period of the evaluation (both improvements and reductions), with some increase in the use of community assets and care plans. Compared with other sites, the difference in the rates of admissions showed an increase in emergency admissions. Patient experience of health coaching was largely positive, although the effects of health coaching on activation and depression were not statistically significant. Economic analyses suggested that coaching was likely to be cost-effective, generating improvements in quality of life [mean incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.019, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.006 to 0.043] at increased cost (mean incremental total cost increase of £150.58, 95% CI –£470.611 to £711.776).LimitationsThe Comprehensive Longitudinal Assessment of Salford Integrated Care study represents a single site evaluation, with consequent limits on external validity. Patient response rates to the cohort survey were < 40%.ConclusionsThe SICP has been implemented in a way that is consistent with the original vision. However, there has been more rapid success in establishing new integrated structures (such as a formal integrated care organisation), rather than in delivering mechanisms of integration at sufficient scale to have a large impact on patient outcomes.Future workFurther research could focus on each of the mechanisms of integration. The multidisciplinary groups may require improved targeting of patients or disease subgroups to demonstrate effectiveness. Development of a proven model of health coaching that can be implemented at scale is required, especially one that would provide cost savings for commissioners or providers. Similarly, further exploration is required to assess the longer-term benefits of community assets and whether or not health impacts translate to reductions in care use.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12286422.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectivesSince 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.DesignWe 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/participantsWe 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).ResultsCCGs 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

ObjectivesEnglish 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.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews and policy document analysis.Setting and participantsNational-level policy maker and stakeholder interviewees (n=16). Policy document analysis of the Network Contract Direct Enhanced Service draft service specifications.AnalysisInterviews 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionsThese 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.