ArticleBMJ open2019
Lessons learnt from the implementation of new care models in the NHS: a qualitative study of the North East Vanguards programme.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to successfully implement population health management: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Reforming healthcare in the Netherlands: practical population health management and the Plot model: A questionnaire survey and focus group study to assess the willingness and readiness of six regions in the Netherlands.SAGE open medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of the impact of two national health and social care integration programmes on emergency hospital admissions.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- What if something happens tonight? A qualitative study of primary care physicians' perspectives on an alternative to hospital admittance.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Integrated Care in England - what can we Learn from a Decade of National Pilot Programmes?International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine lessons learnt from the implementation of five Vanguard initiatives in the North East of England.
designData collection comprised semistructured interviews with key informants at each site.
settingThe study took place across six local authority areas in the North East of England and within six clinical commissioning groups responsible for the delivery of each Vanguard's aims and objectives.
participantsSixty-six interviewees with participants from five Vanguard initiatives in the North East of England, including senior clinicians, project leads and directors, commissioners, and healthcare managers.
resultsWhile the context for each Vanguard is separate and distinct, there also exists a set of common issues which have a regional dimension. Participants felt that the national programme helped to raise the profile of local change initiatives and also contributed to the wider understanding of regional service integration issues. At the same time our findings demonstrate that all five sites experienced, and were subject to, unrealistic pressure placed on them to deliver outcomes. Of particular concern among all sites was the sheer scale and pace of change occurring at the same time as the National Health Service was being tasked with making significant, if unrealistic, efficiency savings.
conclusionsIt is too early to conclude with any confidence that a successful outcome for the new care models programme will be forthcoming. While early indications show some encouraging signs of promise, the overall context in which the complex and ambitious changes are being implemented remains both fragile and fluid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.