No abstract

BackgroundThis review provides intelligence to NHS managers and clinicians involved in commissioning and procurement of non-pay goods and services. It does this in the light of ongoing pressure for the NHS to save money through a combination of cost cutting, productivity improvements and innovation in service delivery, and in the context of new commissioning structures developing as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Great Britain.Health and Social Care Act 2012. Chapter 7. London: The Stationery Office; 2012).ObjectivesWe explore the main strands of the literature about procurement and supply chain management (P&SCM); consider the extent to which existing evidence on the experiences of NHS managers and clinicians involved in commissioning and procurement matches these theories; assess how the empirical evidence about different P&SCM practices and techniques in different countries and sectors might contribute to better commissioning and procurement; and map and evaluate different approaches to improving P&SCM practice.Review methodWe use a realist review method, which emphasises the contingent nature of evidence and addresses questions about what works in which settings, for whom, in what circumstances and why. Adopting realist review principles, the research questions and emerging findings were sense-checked and refined with an advisory group of 16 people. An initial key term search was conducted in October 2013 across relevant electronic bibliographic databases. To ensure quality, the bulk of the search focused on peer-reviewed journals, though this criterion was relaxed where appropriate to capture NHS-related evidence. After a number of stages of sifting, quality checking and updating, 879 texts were identified for full review.ResultsFour literatures were identified: organisational buying behaviour; economics of contracting; networks and interorganisational relationships; and integrated supply chain management (SCM). Theories were clustered by their primary explanatory focus on a particular phase in the P&SCM process. Evidence on NHS commissioning and procurement practice was found in terms of each of these phases, although there were also knowledge gaps relating to decision-making roles, processes and criteria at work in commissioning organisations; the impact of power on collaborative interorganisational relationships over time; and the scope to apply integrated SCM thinking and techniques to supply chains delivering physical goods to the NHS. Evidence on P&SCM practices and techniques beyond the NHS was found to be highly fragmented and at times contradictory but, overall, demonstrated that matching management practice appropriately with context is crucial.ConclusionsWe found that the P&SCM process involves multiple contexts, phases and actors. There are also a wide variety of practices that can be used in each phase of the P&SCM process. Thinking about how practice might be improved in the NHS requires an approach that enables the simplification of the complex interplay of factors in the P&SCM process. Portfolio-based approaches, which provide a contingent approach to considering these factors, are recommended. Future work should focus on conflicting preferences in NHS commissioning and procurement and the role of power and politics in conflict resolution; the impact of power on the scope for collaboration in health-care networks; and the scope to apply integrated SCM practices in NHS procurement organisations.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

GPs are making an important contribution as leaders of health service improvement and redesign but there are significant professional and political barriers to them optimising a leadership role.

In tune with much international practice, the English National Health Service has been striving to transform health care provision to make it more affordable in the face of rising demand. At the heart of a set of recent radical reforms has been the launch of 'clinical commissioning' using the vehicle of local groups of General Practitioners (GPs). This devolves a large portion of the total healthcare budget to these groups. National government policy statements make clear that the expectation is that the groups will 'transform' the organisation and provision of health services. In this article we draw upon interviews, observations and analysis of internal documents to make an assessment of the extent to which clinical leaders have seized the opportunity presented by the creation of these groups to attempt transformative service redesign.

BackgroundA core component of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Great Britain.Health and Social Care Act 2012. London: HMSO; 2012) was the idea of devolving to general practitioners (GPs) a health service leadership role for service redesign. For this purpose, new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were formed in the English NHS.ObjectivesThis research examined the extent to which, and the methods by which, clinicians stepped forward to take up a leadership role in service redesign using CCGs as a platform.DesignThe project proceeded in five phases: (1) a scoping study across 15 CCGs, (2) the design and administration of a national survey of all members of CCG governing bodies in 2014, (3) six main in-depth case studies, (4) a second national survey of governing body members in 2016, which allowed longitudinal comparisons, and (5) international comparisons.ParticipantsIn addition to GPs serving in clinical lead roles for CCGs, the research included insights from accountable officers and other managers and perspectives from secondary care and other provider organisations (local authority councillors and staff, patients and the public, and other relevant bodies).ResultsInstances of the exercise of clinical leadership utilising the mechanism of the CCGs were strikingly varied. Some CCG teams had made little of the opportunity. However, we found other examples of clinicians stepping forward to bring about meaningful improvements in services. The most notable cases involved the design of integrated care for frail elderly patients and others with long-term conditions. The leadership of these service redesigns required cross-boundary working with primary care, secondary care, community care and social work. The processes enabling such breakthroughs required interlocking processes of leadership across three arenas: (1) strategy-level work at CCG board level, (2) mid-range operational planning and negotiation at programme board level and (3) the arena of practical implementation leadership at the point of delivery. The arena of the CCG board provided the legitimacy for strategic change; the programme boards worked through the competing logics of markets, hierarchy and networks; and the practice arena allowed the exercise of clinical leadership in practical problem-solving, detailed learning and routinisation of new ways of working at a common-sense everyday level.LimitationsAlthough the research was conducted over a 3-year period, it could be argued that a much longer period is required for CCGs to mature and realise their potential.ConclusionsDespite the variation in practice, we found significant examples of clinical leaders forging new modes of service design and delivery. A great deal of the service redesign effort was directed at compensating for the fragmented nature of the NHS – part of which had been created by the 2012 reforms. This is the first study to reveal details of such work in a systematic way.Future workFurther focus is needed on the emergent sustainability and transformation plans and the locality/hubs/primary care homes that integrate care across population groups.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.