Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25320000›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Views of NHS commissioners on commissioning support provision. Evidence from a qualitative study examining the early development of clinical commissioning groups in England.

Christina Petsoulas, Pauline Allen, Kath Checkland, Anna Coleman, Julia Segar, Stephen Peckham, Imelda Mcdermott

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
25.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christina PetsoulasDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Pauline AllenDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kath ChecklandCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anna ColemanCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK.
Julia SegarCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK.
Stephen PeckhamCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK.
Imelda McdermottCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK.
University of Kent · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe 2010 healthcare reform in England introduced primary care-led commissioning in the National Health Service (NHS) by establishing clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). A key factor for the success of the reform is the provision of excellent commissioning support services to CCGs. The Government's aim is to create a vibrant market of competing providers of such services (from both for-profit and not-for-profit sectors). Until this market develops, however, commissioning support units (CSUs) have been created from which CCGs are buying commissioning support functions. This study explored the attitudes of CCGs towards outsourcing commissioning support functions during the initial stage of the reform.

designThe research took place between September 2011 and June 2012. We used a case study research design in eight CCGs, conducting in-depth interviews, observation of meetings and analysis of policy documents. SETTING/

participantsWe conducted 96 interviews and observed 146 meetings (a total of approximately 439 h).

resultsMany CCGs were reluctant to outsource core commissioning support functions (such as contracting) for fear of losing local knowledge and trusted relationships. Others were disappointed by the absence of choice and saw CSUs as monopolies and a recreation of the abolished PCTs. Many expressed doubts about the expectation that outsourcing of commissioning support functions will result in lower administrative costs.

conclusionsGiven the nature of healthcare commissioning, outsourcing vital commissioning support functions may not be the preferred option of CCGs. Considerations of high transaction costs, and the risk of fragmentation of services and loss of trusted relationships involved in short-term contracting, may lead most CCGs to decide to form long-term partnerships with commissioning support suppliers in the future. This option, however, limits competition by creating 'network closure' and calls into question the Government's intention to create a vibrant market of commissioning support provision.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PlanningPrimary Health CareEnglandHealth Planning OrganizationsHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansQualitative ResearchState MedicineQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID25320000
PMCPMC4202006
OpenAlexW2141692015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.