Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29921230›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Implementing new care models: learning from the Greater Manchester demonstrator pilot experience.

Rebecca Elvey, Simon Bailey, Kath Checkland, Anne McBride, Stephen Parkin, Katy Rothwell, Damian Hodgson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Rebecca ElveyThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. rebecca.elvey@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3754-4979
Simon BaileyThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Kath ChecklandThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Anne McBrideThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Stephen ParkinRadcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Katy RothwellNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC), Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Salford, M6 8HD, UK.
Damian HodgsonThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent health policy focuses on improving accessibility, increasing integration and shifting resources from hospitals to community and primary care. Initiatives aimed at achieving these policy aims have supported the implementation of various 'new models of care', including general practice offering 'additional availability' appointments during evenings and at weekends. In Greater Manchester, six 'demonstrator sites' were funded: four sites delivered additional availability appointments, other services included case management and rapid response. The aim of this paper is to explore the factors influencing the implementation of services within a programme designed to improve access to primary care. The paper consists of a qualitative process evaluation undertaken within provider organisations, including general practices, hospitals and care homes.

methodsSemi-structured interviews, with the data subjected to thematic analysis.

resultsNinety-one people participated in interviews. Six key factors were identified as important for the establishment and running of the demonstrators: information technology; information governance; workforce and organisational development; communications and engagement; supporting infrastructure; federations and alliances. These factors brought to light challenges in the attempt to provide new or modify existing services. Underpinning all factors was the issue of trust; there was consensus amongst our participants that trusting relationships, particularly between general practices, were vital for collaboration. It was also crucial that general practices trusted in the integrity of anyone external who was to work with the practice, particularly if they were to access data on the practice computer system. A dialogical approach was required, which enabled staff to see themselves as active rather than passive participants.

conclusionsThe research highlights various challenges presented by the context within which extended access is implemented. Trust was the fundamental underlying issue; there was consensus amongst participants that trusting relationships were vital for effective collaboration in primary care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPrimary Health CareCase ManagementDelivery of Health CareGeneral PracticeHealth PolicyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansModels, OrganizationalQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementTime FactorsUnited KingdomAccess to health careGeneral practiceHealth services evaluationOrganizational innovationPrimary health careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29921230
PMCPMC6006551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.