Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29122801›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

Valerie Moran, Pauline Allen, Imelda McDermott, Kath Checkland, Lynsey Warwick-Giles, Oz Gore, Donna Bramwell, Anna Coleman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Valerie MoranDepartment 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.
Imelda McDermottDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1949-2362
Kath ChecklandDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lynsey Warwick-GilesDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Oz GoreDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care and Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Donna BramwellDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care and Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anna ColemanDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFrom April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.

designWe carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs). SETTING/

participantsWe conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.

resultsConflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.

conclusionsDevolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestAdvisory CommitteesEnglandGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchState Medicineclinical commissioning groupsconflicts of interestprimary care

Identifiers

PMID29122801
PMCPMC5695513

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.