Decommissioning health care: identifying best practice through primary and secondary research – a prospective mixed-methods study

Abstract

BackgroundDecommissioning – defined as the planned process of removing, reducing or replacing health-care services – is an important component of current reforms in the NHS. However, the evidence base on which to guide policy and practice in this area is weak.AimThis study aims to formulate theoretically grounded, evidence-informed guidance to support best practice in effective decommissioning of NHS services.DesignThe overall approach is a sequential, multimethod research design. The study involves (1) a literature synthesis summarising what is known about decommissioning, an international expert Delphi study, 12 interviews with national/regional bodies and seven narrative vignettes from NHS leaders; (2) a survey of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England (n = 56/211, 27%); (3) longitudinal, prospective case studies of four purposively sampled decommissioning projects comprising 59 semistructured interviews, 18 non-participant observations and documentary analysis; and (4) research with citizens, patient/service user representatives, carers, third-sector organisations and local community groups, including three focus groups (30 participants) and a second Delphi study (26 participants). The study took place over the period 2013–16.SettingThe English NHS.ResultsThere is a lack of robust evidence to guide decommissioning, but among experts there is a high level of consensus for the following good-practice principles: establish a strong leadership team, engage clinical leaders from an early stage and establish a clear rationale for change. The most common type of CCG decommissioning activity was ‘relocation or replacement of a service from an acute to a community setting’ (28% of all activities) and the majority of responding CCGs (77%) were planning to decommission services. Case studies demonstrate the need to (1) draw on evidence, reviews and policies to frame the problem; (2) build alliances in order to legitimise decommissioning as a solution; (3) seek wider acceptance, including among patients and community groups, of decommissioning; and (4) devise implementation plans that recognise the additional challenges of removal and replacement. Citizens, patient/service user representatives, carers, third-sector organisations and local community groups were more likely to believe that decommissioning is driven by financial and political concerns than by considerations of service quality and efficiency, and to distrust and/or resent decision-makers. Overall, the study suggests that failure rates in decommissioning are likely to be higher than in other forms of service change, suggesting the need for tailored design and implementation approaches.LimitationsThere were few opportunities for patient and public engagement in early phases of the research; however, this was mitigated by the addition of work package 4. We were unable to track outcomes of decommissioning activities within the time scales of the project and the survey response rate was lower than anticipated.ConclusionsDecommissioning is shaped by change management and implementation, evidence and information, and relationships and politics. We propose an expanded understanding, encompassing organisational and political factors, of how avoidance of loss affects the delivery of decommissioning programmes. Future work should explore the relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes in decommissioning, develop the understanding of how loss affects decisions and explore the long-term impact of decommissioning and its impact on patient care and outcomes.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Emergency admission risk stratification tools in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey of availability and use

“…To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to examine implementation of EARS across the UK. The main strength of this study lies in the comprehensive coverage; 171 (72.8%) of the 235 NHS commissioners across four nations, which is notably higher than previous CCG surveys, where coverage was 27%, 29 43%, 30 and 52%. 31 Nevertheless, non-responders could differ from responders, and the views of front end staff may differ in comparison to this survey of commissioning bodies.…”

Transforming primary care: scoping review of research and practice

“…One of the reasons that it can be hard to release savings is that health care planners in public health systems find it difficult to disinvest in existing services. Challenges include inconclusive evidence, community resistance and disincentives for clinicians ( Williams et al , 2017 ).…”

Decommissioning in a local healthcare system in Sweden: responses to fiscal stress

“…Decommissioning is the planned process of removing, reducing or replacing healthcare services at the organisational level, and strategic reconfiguration of services that lead to organisational downgrading or closure. Decommissioning generally refers to an explicit approach in which the rationale and aims of decisions are made clear to all those involved, but may be passive through political neglect or less explicit through processes such as organisational mergers and takeovers not presented as decommissioning [1][2][3]. The focus in this paper is active decommissioning, which may include activities such as the termination of services, closure of specific providers, or reinvestment in cheaper alternatives [3,4].…”

“…The limited knowledge about the effects of decommissioning has been emphasized in previous research, suggesting that the contextual factors surrounding the enactment and implementation of decommissioning policies has not been the subject of sustained academic debate [2]. According to Williams et al [1], this has entailed a lack of theoretical insights about how decommissioning can be designed and implemented. A crucial first step towards improving decommissioning theory and practice is thus to better understand how decommissioning programs empirically unfold in health systems.…”