Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26743708›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Complexity in the new NHS: longitudinal case studies of CCGs in England.

Katherine Checkland, Imelda McDermott, Anna Coleman, Neil Perkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Financing of integrated health service networks].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. GP leadership in clinical commissioning groups: a qualitative multi-case study approach across England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Katherine ChecklandCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Imelda McDermottCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1949-2362
Anna ColemanCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Neil PerkinsCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe reform in the English National Health Services (NHS) under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is unlike previous NHS reorganisations. The establishment of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) was intended to be 'bottom up' with no central blueprint. This paper sets out to offer evidence about how this process has played out in practice and examines the implications of the complexity and variation which emerged.

designDetailed case studies in CCGs across England, using interviews, observation and documentary analysis. Using realist framework, we unpacked the complexity of CCG structures. SETTING/

participantsIn phase 1 of the study (January 2011 to September 2012), we conducted 96 interviews, 439 h of observation in a wide variety of meetings, 2 online surveys and 38 follow-up telephone interviews. In phase 2 (April 2013 to March 2015), we conducted 42 interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and managers and observation of 48 different types of meetings.

resultsOur study has highlighted the complexity inherent in CCGs, arising out of the relatively permissive environment in which they developed. Not only are they very different from one another in size, but also in structure, functions between different bodies and the roles played by GPs.

conclusionsThe complexity and lack of uniformity of CCGs is important as it makes it difficult for those who must engage with CCGs to know who to approach at what level. This is of increasing importance as CCGs are moving towards greater integration across health and social care. Our study also suggests that there is little consensus as to what being a 'membership' organisation means and how it should operate. The lack of uniformity in CCG structure and lack of clarity over the meaning of 'membership' raises questions over accountability, which becomes of greater importance as CCG is taking over responsibility for primary care co-commissioning.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCosts and Cost AnalysisEnglandGeneral PracticeGoverning BoardHealth Care ReformHumansLongitudinal StudiesPhysician's RoleQuality Assurance, Health CareState MedicinePRIMARY CAREQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26743708
PMCPMC4716224

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.