Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492139›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Negotiating commissioning pathways for the successful implementation of innovative health technology in primary care.

Gregory Maniatopoulos, Shona Haining, John Allen, Scott Wilkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Gregory ManiatopoulosInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. gregory.maniatopoulos@ncl.ac.uk.
Shona HainingNorth of England Commissioning Support Unit, Durham, UK.
John AllenNorthern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, The Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Scott WilkesSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK.

Funding

Department of Health II-C1-0412-20003Invention for Innovation II-C1-0412-20003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommissioning innovative health technologies is typically complex and multi-faceted. Drawing on the negotiated order perspective, we explore the process by which commissioning organisations make their decisions to commission innovative health technologies. The empirical backdrop to this discussion is provided by a case study exploring the commissioning considerations for a new photoplethysmography-based diagnostic technology for peripheral arterial disease in primary care in the UK.

methodsThe research involved an empirical case study of four Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) involved in the commissioning of services in primary and secondary care. Semi-structured in-depth interviews (16 in total) and two focus groups (a total of eight people participated, four in each group) were conducted with key individuals involved in commissioning services in the NHS including (i) senior NHS clinical leaders and directors (ii) commissioners and health care managers across CCGs and (iii) local general practitioners.

resultsCommissioning of a new diagnostic technology for peripheral arterial disease in primary care involves high levels of protracted negotiations over funding between providers and commissioners, alliance building, conflict resolution and compromise of objectives where the outcomes of change are highly contingent upon interventions made across different care settings. Our evidence illustrates how reconfigurations of inter-organisational relations, and of clinical and related work practices required for the successful implementation of a new technology could become the major challenge in commissioning negotiations.

conclusionsInnovative health technologies such as the diagnostic technology for peripheral arterial disease are commissioned in care pathways where the value of such technology is realised by those delivering care to patients. The detail of how care pathways are commissioned is complex and involves high degrees of uncertainty concerning such issues as prioritisation decisions, patient benefits, clinical buy-in, value for money and unintended consequences. Recent developments in the new care models and integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK offer a unique opportunity for the successful commissioning arrangements of innovative health technologies in primary care such as the new diagnostic technology for peripheral arterial disease.

Indexed as

InventionsBiomedical TechnologyDiffusion of InnovationFocus GroupsGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHealth Services AdministrationHumansNegotiatingPrimary Health CareState MedicineCommissioningDecision-makingDiagnosticsInnovative health technologiesPeripheral arterial diseasePrimary careUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID31492139
PMCPMC6731596

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.