Can primary care be both patient-centred and community-led?

What happens when GPs engage in commissioning? Two decades of experience in the English NHS

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on commissioning schemes involving clinicians in the United Kingdom National Health Service, between 1991 and 2010; report on the extent and impact of clinical engagement; and distil lessons for the development of such schemes both in the UK and elsewhere.

METHODS

A review of published evidence. Five hundred and fourteen abstracts were obtained from structured searches and screened. Full-text papers were retrieved for UK empirical studies exploring the relationship between commissioners and providers with clinician involvement. Two hundred and eighteen published materials were reviewed.

RESULTS

The extent of clinical engagement varied between the various schemes. Schemes allowing clinicians to act autonomously were more likely to generate significant engagement, with 'virtuous cycles' (experience of being able to make changes feeding back to encourage greater engagement) and 'vicious cycles' (failure to influence services generating disengagement) observed. Engagement of the wider general practitioner (GP) membership was an important determinant of success. Most impact was seen in GP prescribing and the establishment of services in general practices. There was little evidence of GPs engaging more widely with public health issues.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for a significant impact of clinical engagement on commissioning outcomes is limited. Initial changes are likely to be small scale and to focus on services in primary care. Engagement of GP members of primary care commissioning organizations is an important determinant of progress, but generates significant transaction costs.

What impact did the creation of Local Health Care Co-operatives have on indicators of practice resources and activity?

Background

The creation of Local Health Care Cooperatives (LHCCs) in Scotland in 1999 was typical of attempts to encourage voluntary integration and co-operation between health care providers. One of the three stated objectives of their introduction was to tackle inequalities and improve access to care.

Methods

We used administrative data on all general practices in 1999 and 2003 to examine whether LHCCs had any measurable impact on six indicators of practice resources and activity. We compare three groups (participant, non-participant, and ineligible practices) through regression analysis of changes over time in group means and within-group inequality (measured using Gini coefficients). In addition, for participants we measure changes in the variation between and within LHCCs.

Results

Despite having similar registered populations to participants, non-participants had lower levels of resources at the start of the period and this differential widened over time. The changes over time in the activity indicators were similar across the three groups. There was little evidence that inequality between LHCC practices narrowed more than in the other two groups. Practices within LHCCs appear to be become more homogenous while variation increased between LHCCs.

Conclusion

The mixed messages from our examination of resources and activity indicators demonstrates that there are likely to be important lessons to be learned from the brief experiment with LHCCs. Clear objectives that are evaluated using a battery of simple performance indicators may help to ensure demonstrable change in future initiatives to foster integration and co-operation.