Policy implementation in practice: the case of national service frameworks in general practice

National Service Frameworks are an integral part of the government's drive to 'modernise' the NHS, intended to standardise both clinical care and the design of the services used to deliver that clinical care. This article uses evidence from qualitative case studies in three general practices to illustrate the difficulties associated with the implementation of such top-down guidelines and models of service. In these studies it was found that, while there had been little explicit activity directed at implementation overall, the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease had in general fared better than that for older people. Gunn's notion of 'perfect implementation' is used to make sense of the findings.

Management in general practice: the challenge of the new General Medical Services contract

BACKGROUND

Managers in general practice perform a variety of roles, from purely administrative to higher-level strategic planning. There has been little research investigating in detail how they perform these roles and the problems that they encounter. The new General Medical Services (GMS) contract contains new management challenges and it is not clear how practices will meet these.

AIM

To improve understanding of the roles performed by managers in general practice and to consider the implications of this for the implementation of the new GMS contract.

DESIGN OF STUDY

In-depth qualitative case studies covering the period before and immediately after the vote in favour of the new GMS contract.

SETTING

Three general practices in England, chosen using purposeful sampling.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with all clinical and managerial personnel in each practice, participant and non-participant observation, and examination of documents.

RESULTS

Understanding about what constitutes the legitimate role of managers in general practice varies both within and between practices. Those practices in the study that employed a manager to work at a strategic level with input into the direction of the organisation demonstrated significant problems with this in practice. These included lack of clarity about what the legitimate role of the manager involved, problems relating to the authority of managers in the context of a partnership, and lack of time available to them to do higher-level work. In addition, general practitioners (GPs) were not confident about their ability to manage their managers' performance.

CONCLUSION

The new GMS contract will place significant demands on practice management. These results suggest that it cannot be assumed that simply employing a manager with high-level skills will enable these demands to be met; there must first be clarity about what the manager should be doing, and attention must be directed at questions about the legitimacy enjoyed by such a manager, the limits of his or her authority, and the management of performance in this role.

Re-thinking accountability: trust versus confidence in medical practice

In seeking to prevent a reoccurrence of scandals such as that involving cardiac surgery in Bristol, the UK government has adopted a model of regulation that uses rules and surveillance as a way of both improving the quality of care delivered and increasing confidence in healthcare institutions. However, this approach may actually act to reduce confidence and trust while also reducing the moral motivation of practitioners. Accountability in health care is discussed, and it is suggested that openness about the difficult dilemmas that arise when practitioners have a duty to be accountable to more than one audience may be an alternative means of restoring trust. A greater emphasis on the sharing of information between individual health professionals and their patients would increase trust and would allow patients to hold their doctors to account for the quality of care they receive. Concentrating more on developing trust by the sharing of information and less on the futile search for complete confidence in systems and rules may improve the quality of care delivered while also nurturing the moral motivation of professionals upon which the delivery of high quality health care depends.

Changing the lens: widening the approach to primary care research

After years of being shielded from most of the managerial and organisational changes in health care, primary care is going through a period of change in many countries. Much of the research that has been done in primary care, in common with that in secondary care, puts at the centre of its methodology the concept of professionalism. However, there are other ways of theorising medical work, and using a wider range of theoretical 'lenses' when planning research into the impact of change will enhance and enrich that research. Viewing primary care physicians as 'workers', concerned, like other workers, with constructing understanding of what they do that helps them cope with pressures and uncertainties, shifts the focus of research questions away from issues of professional status towards the practical ways in which they deal with change in their local contexts. Research using this theoretical approach may be able to explain phenomena that other, more broad-brush approaches cannot.