Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36754564›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Developing architecture of system management in the English NHS: evidence from a qualitative study of three Integrated Care Systems.

Marie Sanderson, Pauline Allen, Dorota Osipovic, Christina Petsoulas, Olga Boiko, Colin Lorne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. New Ways of Working to Manage and Improve Quality in Integrated Care Systems in England.International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  3. National charitable fundraising for the NHS, 1948-2023.Social policy & administration · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

6 authors.

Marie SandersonDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK marie.sanderson@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7917-6786
Pauline AllenDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dorota OsipovicDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Christina PetsoulasDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Olga BoikoDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, King's College London, London, UK.
Colin LorneFaculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIntegrated Care Systems (ICSs) mark a change in the English National Health Service to more collaborative interorganisational working. We explored how effective the ICS form of collaboration is in achieving its goals by investigating how ICSs were developing, how system partners were balancing organisational and system responsibilities, how partners could be held to account and how local priorities were being reconciled with ICS priorities.

designWe carried out detailed case studies in three ICSs, each consisting of a system and its partners, using interviews, documentary analysis and meeting observations. SETTING/

participantsWe conducted 64 in-depth, semistructured interviews with director-level representatives of ICS partners and observed eight meetings (three in case study 1, three in case study 2 and two in case study 3).

resultsCollaborative working was welcomed by system members. The agreement of local governance arrangements was ongoing and challenging. System members found it difficult to balance system and individual responsibilities, with concerns that system priorities could run counter to organisational interests. Conflicts of interest were seen as inherent, but the benefits of collaborative decision-making were perceived to outweigh risks. There were multiple examples of work being carried out across systems and 'places' to share resources, change resource allocation and improve partnership working. Some interviewees reported reticence addressing difficult issues collaboratively, and that organisations' statutory accountabilities were allowing a 'retreat' from the confrontation of difficult issues facing systems, such as agreeing action to achieve financial sustainability.

conclusionsThere remain significant challenges regarding agreeing governance, accountability and decision-making arrangements which are particularly important due to the recent Health and Care Act 2022 which gave ICSs allocative functions for the majority of health resources for local populations. An arbiter who is independent of the ICS may be required to resolve disputes, along with increased support for shaping governance arrangements.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedState MedicineHealth ResourcesHumansQualitative ResearchResource AllocationHealth policyHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTOrganisation of health servicesQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID36754564
PMCPMC9923249

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.