Leadership of healthcare commissioning networks in England: a mixed-methods study on clinical commissioning groups. Issue 2 (20th February 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zachariadis, Markos; Oborn, Eivor; Barrett, Michael; Zollinger-Read, Paul
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 3:Issue 2(2013)
• Publication Date: 2013-02-20
• Subjects: Health Services Administration & Management -- Qualitative Research; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002112
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To explore the relational challenges for general practitioner (GP) leaders setting up new network-centric commissioning organisations in the recent health policy reform in England, we use innovation network theory to identify key network leadership practices that facilitate healthcare innovation. Design: Mixed-method, multisite and case study research. Setting: Six clinical commissioning groups and local clusters in the East of England area, covering in total 208 GPs and 1 662 000 population. Methods: Semistructured interviews with 56 lead GPs, practice managers and staff from the local health authorities (primary care trusts, PCT) as well as various healthcare professionals; 21 observations of clinical commissioning group (CCG) board and executive meetings; electronic survey of 58 CCG board members (these included GPs, practice managers, PCT employees, nurses and patient representatives) and subsequent social network analysis. Main outcome measures: Collaborative relationships between CCG board members and stakeholders from their healthcare network; clarifying the role of GPs as network leaders; strengths and areas for development of CCGs. Results: Drawing upon innovation network theory provides unique insights of the CCG leaders' activities in establishing best practices and introducing new clinical pathways. In this context we identified three network leadership roles: managing knowledge flows, managing network coherence and managing network stability. Knowledge sharing and effective collaboration among GPs enable network stability and the alignment of CCG objectives with those of the wider health system (network coherence). Even though activities varied between commissioning groups, collaborative initiatives were common. However, there was significant variation among CCGs around the level of engagement with providers, patients and local authorities. Locality (sub) groups played an important role because they linked commissioning decisions with patient needs and brought the leaders closer to frontline stakeholders. Conclusions: With the new commissioning arrangements, the leaders should seek to move away from dyadic and transactional relationships to a network structure, thereby emphasising on the emerging relational focus of their roles. Managing knowledge mobility, healthcare network coherence and network stability are the three clinical leadership processes that CCG leaders need to consider in coordinating their network and facilitating the development of good clinical commissioning decisions, best practices and innovative services. To successfully manage these processes, CCG leaders need to leverage the relational capabilities of their network as well as their clinical expertise to establish appropriate collaborations that may improve the healthcare services in England. Lack of local GP engagement adds uncertainty to the system and increases the risk of commissioning decisions being irrelevant and inefficient from patient and provider perspectives.