Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12153920›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

Process and impact of mergers of NHS trusts: multicentre case study and management cost analysis.

Naomi Fulop, Gerasimos Protopsaltis, Andrew Hutchings, Annette King, Pauline Allen, Charles Normand, Rhiannon Walters

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England's NHS: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. England's new health and care bill.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Changing how we think about healthcare improvement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Naomi FulopHealth Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT. naomi.fulop@lshtm.ac.uk
Gerasimos Protopsaltis
Andrew Hutchings
Annette King
Pauline Allen
Charles Normand
Rhiannon Walters

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo study the processes involved in and impact of mergers between NHS trusts, including the effect on management costs.

designCross sectional study involving in depth interviews and documentary analysis; case study to compare savings in management costs between case trusts and control trusts.

settingNine trusts (cross sectional study) and four trusts (case study) in London.

participants96 interviews with trust board members, other senior managers, clinicians, service managers, and representatives of health authorities, regional office, community health councils, local authorities, other trusts in the area, and primary care groups and trusts.

main outcome measuresStated and unstated drivers, and impact of merger on delivery and development of services, management structures, and staff recruitment, retention, and morale. Effects of difference in trust size before and after the merger. Savings in management costs two years after merger.

resultsSome important drivers for merger are not publicly stated. Mergers had a negative effect on delivery of services because of a loss of managerial focus on services. Planned developments in services were delayed by at least 18 months. Trusts' larger sizes after mergers had unintended negative consequences, as well as predicted advantages. The tendency for one trust's management team to dominate over the other resulted in tension. No improvement in recruitment or retention of clinical and managerial staff was reported. Perceived differences in organisational culture were an important barrier to bringing together two or more organisations. Two years after merger, merged trusts had not achieved the objective of saving pound 500 000 a year in management costs.

conclusionsImportant unintended consequences need to be accounted for when mergers are planned. Mergers can cause considerable disruptions to services, and require greater management support than previously acknowledged. Other organisations undergoing restructuring, such as primary care groups developing into primary care trusts and health authorities merging into strategic health authorities, should take these findings into account.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCost SavingsCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Facility MergerHealth Facility SizeHealth Services ResearchHospital CostsHospitals, PublicHumansInstitutional Management TeamsInterprofessional RelationsInterviews as TopicLondonMoraleOrganizational Case StudiesOrganizational Culture

Identifiers

PMID12153920
PMCPMC117637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.