Soft governance and attitudes to clinical quality in English general practice

OBJECTIVES: English primary care organisations (primary care groups and trusts - PCGs, PCTs) were, and are, responsible for the quality of general practice but lack hierarchical structures and, frequently, contractual relationships through which to influence it. The theory of soft governance describes how managers can influence professional practice by other means. This study examines the hypothesis that PCG/Ts have used 'soft' clinical governance. METHODS: Survey in 2000/01 of general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes, opinions and self-reported activity in six PCGs and six PCTs using a semi-structured mailed questionnaire. To assess how representative respondents were of English GPs generally, four questions from a national sample survey of English GPs were included and the results compared. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 437 (52%) GPs. They most often mentioned the technical aspects of clinical governance. Managerial, policy and resourcing implications were next most frequently mentioned, usually in unfavourable terms. Most GPs reported that their clinical practice had changed because of clinical governance activities, although nearly 40% also reported little difference in the quality of care provided. The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease influenced practice independently of PCG/T activities. CONCLUSION: English primary care organisations are exercising soft governance (although not by that name) over some but not all aspects of GPs' clinical practice. However, this soft governance is complex, not easy to sustain and appears hard to extend beyond essentially clinical domains.     

The development of English primary care group governance. A scenario analysis

At present there is a policy vacuum about what English Primary Care Groups' (PCGs) governance will be when they develop into Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). Draft legislation leaves many options open, so PCT governance is likely to 'emerge' as PCTs are created. It also remains uncertain how general practitioners (GPs) will react to the formation of PCTs and how the UK government will then respond in turn. A scenario analysis suggests three possible lines of development. The base (likeliest) scenario predicts a mainly networked form of PCT governance. An alternative scenario is of PCT governance resembling the former National Health Service internal market. A third scenario predicts 'franchise model' PCTs employing some GPs and subcontracting others. To different degrees all three scenarios predict that PCTs will retain elements of networked governance. If it fails to make GPs as accountable to NHS management as the UK government wishes, networked governance may prove only a transitional stage before English PCTs adopt either quasi-market or hierarchical governance.     

User involvement in clinical governance

Objectives  To investigate the involvement of users in clinical governance activities within Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Trusts (PCTs). Drawing on policy and guidance published since 1997, the paper sets out a framework for how users are involved in this agenda, evaluates practice against this standard and suggests why current practice for user involvement in clinical governance is flawed and why this reflects a flaw in the policy design as much as its implementation.
Design  Qualitative data comprising semi-structured interviews, reviews of documentary evidence and relevant literature.
Setting  Twelve PCGs/PCTs in England purposively selected to provide variation in size, rurality and group or trust status.
Participants  Key stakeholders including Lay Board members ( n =12), Chief Executives (CEs) ( n = 12), Clinical Governance Leads (CG leads) ( n = 14), Mental Health Leads (MH leads) ( n = 9), Board Chairs ( n =2) and one Executive Committee Lead.
Results  Despite an acknowledgement of an organizational commitment to lay involvement, in practice very little has occurred. The role of lay Board members in setting priorities and implementing and monitoring clinical governance remains low. Beyond Board level, involvement of users, patients of GP practices and the general public is patchy and superficial. The PCGs/PCTs continue to rely heavily on Community Health Councils (CHCs) as a conduit or substitute for user involvement; although their abolition is planned, their role to be fulfilled by new organizations called Voices, which will have an expanded remit in addition to replacing CHCs.
Conclusions  Clarity is required about the role of lay members in the committees and subcommittees of PCGs and PCTs. Involvement of the wider public should spring naturally from the questions under consideration, rather than be regarded as an end in itself.     

Managing or managed? Experience of general practitioners in English Primary Care Groups and Trusts.

This article presents findings from a wider UK Department of Health funded evaluation of English Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Trusts (PCTs). It presents qualitative research into the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) in these PCG/Ts and explores the extent to which GPs manage, or are managed by, these new organizations. Using the framework of stratification theory, the paper explores whether there is any evidence to suggest PCTs will strengthen collective medical control over resource allocation whilst fending off management control of clinical decision-making. It also examines whether individual GPs not involved at board level feel a loss of control over decisions and their own clinical practice. A stratified random sample of 20 GPs was selected for in-depth interview. The in-depth interviews were designed to capture the full complexity and variety of GPs' experiences that routinely available data could not capture. GPs were anxious that clinical decisions were, or could, be overridden by other concerns such as cost control. The extent to which primary care professionals leading PCGs and PCTs could fend off managerial control was doubted. However, whilst GPs felt under threat, this was more an anticipated threat than a reality. GPs within PCG/Ts seem prepared to accept a degree of standardization if they feel that this is consistent with good clinical care. However, although there was the impression of greater central control, PCGs and PCTs and Government policies did not appear to have made an impression on clinical autonomy.     

Autonomy and bureaucratic accountability in primary care: what English general practitioners say

Abstract Clinical autonomy has long been seen as conceptually central to the analysis of the occupational status of the medical profession, though the implications for this of recent developments in health care managerialism have been disputed by theorists. In particular, the question has arisen as to whether ‘restratification’, that is, the active involvement of physicians in this process, should be construed as medical élites exerting control over the rank and file in order to protect the profession as a whole, or as an incursion from outside it. This paper uses interview data from 49 general medical practitioners in Northern England. It investigates their perceptions of how current government policies, and the new institutions and governance arrangements that they have created impact on physicians’ ability to set their own limits and to judge their own work. We found a clear acceptance by GPs of the need to discharge ‘bureaucratic accountability’, in particular to maintain records of their clinical decisions. This provides the possibility of external surveillance of medical work, and thus implies a clear reduction in autonomy over the content of medical work on the part of rank‐and‐file GPs, who may regret this situation but offer little resistance to it. Our findings illustrate a form of restratification; the most frequently reported immediate source of pressure to modify casenote recording was the Primary Care Group (PCG), an organisation constitutionally dominated by physicians acting in a managerial capacity. Nevertheless, the agendas of PCGs are largely driven by central government and our study thus provides further evidence of the intermediary or contingent (rather than independent) character of professional autonomy.     

Community involvement and Primary Care Trusts: The case for social entrepreneurship

This article looks at the different and sometimes conflicting policy drivers for a move towards greater community involvement in primary health care. In this context, research findings focusing on community involvement initiatives that have taken place within general practices, Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are explored and the key issues for implementation are appraised. Using an evaluation of a team set up to foster community involvement with the PCTs in Bradford, the utility of a social entrepreneurship approach is considered. It is argued that this form of approach can be employed as a means of utilizing the work of existing groups and operating in a ‘joined up’ way. It is further contended that an emphasis on process and on social entrepreneurship can foster the development of community involvement practices in Primary Care Trusts to meet the current and changing health needs of local communities.     

From parallel policies to integrated practice: PMS and PCG/Ts.

This paper describes findings from an exploratory study of attempts by primary care clinicians and managers to utilize two distinct Government policy initiatives (the establishment of Primary Care Groups [PCGs] and Trusts [PCTs] and the establishment of Primary Medical Services [PMS] pilots) to promote innovation in primary care. The study purposively selected three whole PCG-PMS sites and one PCT-PMS site. A range of different qualitative methods were used to collect data. Although the data suggest that attempts to integrate the two policies produced impressive corporate innovation by practices working together to benefit patients in whole localities, the four sites shared features that would not necessarily be present in all PCG/Ts. These include a strong history of inter-practice working, mutually supportive relationships between clinicians and managers, and a carefully designed, managed and inclusive change process led by credible clinicians. The study has implications for the continuing implementation of both policies, especially in view of the increasing size of PCTs.     

Tearing down the Berlin wall: social workers' perspectives on joint working with general practice

BACKGROUND: The arrangements for delivering social work and primary health care to older people in England and Wales are currently subject to rapid re-configuration, with the development of integrated primary care and social services trusts. OBJECTIVE: To investigate perceptions of joint working in social services and general practice. METHODS: The study setting was two London boroughs covered by one health authority, one NHS Community Health Services Trust, four Primary Care Groups and two social services departments. All social work team managers in both areas were interviewed together with a purposive sample of social workers with a high number of older clients on their caseloads. A sample of GPs was sought using a sampling frame of practice size in each borough. Structured interviews with open and closed questions were used. Tape-recorded interviews were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis. Analysis of emergent themes was aided by the use of Atlas-ti. RESULTS: Social workers and GPs agree on the need for joint working, but have different understandings of it, each profession wanting the other to change its organizational culture. Co-location of social and health care is seen as desirable, but threatening to social work. Concerns about differences in power and hierarchical authority are evident and explicit in social work perspectives. Conflict resolution strategies include risk minimization, adopting pragmatic, case-specific solutions rather than remaining consistent with policy, using nurses as mediators, and resorting to authority. CONCLUSIONS: Although this is a study from urban areas in England, its findings may have wider significance since we have found that resources and professional skills may be more important than organizational arrangements in collaborative working between disciplines. Primary Care Trusts in England and Wales should promote awareness of these different perspectives, perceived risks and conflict minimization strategies in their work on clinical governance and professional development.     

Impact on health authorities of the introduction of primary care groups and trusts.

The National Tracker Survey of Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Trusts (PCTs) in the UK has provided evidence about how PCGs and Health Authorities managed the transition to PCTs. This was a major challenge for both organizations. Devolution of responsibilities was dependent on the capacity and readiness of PCGs to take on their new roles. The development of good working relationships between the principal parties was critical to this process. Health Authorities started to let go and all put in place basic mechanisms for holding PCGs to account in their first year. However, a number of PCGs regarded their Health Authority as authoritarian. Most Health Authorities were found to have started to provide information to support PCGs in their core functions, but resources were frequently problematic. It will be important for Health Authorities and PCG/Ts to negotiate a shared view of their respective roles and responsibilities. The future role of Health Authorities in providing strategic leadership for their local health economies was not sufficiently well defined or understood.     

Soft governance,restratification and the 2004 general medical services contract: the case of UK primary care organisations and general practice teams

In the UK National Health Service, primary care organisation (PCO) managers have traditionally relied on the soft leadership of general practitioners based on professional self‐regulation rather than direct managerial control. The 2004 general medical services contract (nGMS) represented a significant break from this arrangement by introducing new performance management mechanisms for PCO managers to measure and improve general practice work. This article examines the impact of nGMS on the governance of UK general practice by PCO managers through a qualitative analysis of data from an empirical study in four UK PCOs and eight general practices, drawing on Hood's four‐part governance framework. Two hybrids emerged: (i) PCO managers emphasised a hybrid of oversight, competition (comptrol) and peer‐based mutuality by granting increased support, guidance and autonomy to compliant practices; and (ii) practices emphasised a broad acceptance of increased PCO oversight of clinical work that incorporated a restratified elite of general practice clinical peers at both PCO and practice levels. Given the increased international focus on the quality, safety and efficiency in primary care, a key issue for PCOs and practices will be to achieve an effective, contextually appropriate balance between the counterposing governance mechanisms of peer‐led mutuality and externally led comptrol.     

Primary Care Groups and NHS Rationing: Implications of the Child B Case

Implementing The new NHS and the 1997 NHS (Primary Care) Act will gradually extend cash-limiting into primary health care, especially general practice. UK policy-makers have avoided providing clear, unambivalent direction about how to 'ration' NHS resources. The 'Child B' case became an epitome of public debate about NHS rationing. Among many other decision-making processes which occurred, Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority applied an ethical code to this rationing decision. Using new data this paper analyses the rationing criteria NHS managers and clinicians used at local level in the Child B case; and the organisational structures which confronted them with such decisions. Primary Care Groups are likely to confront similar rationing decisions in respect of 'gate-kept' NHS services. However, such rationing processes are not so easily transposed to open-access services such as general practice. NHS rationing decisions, especially in PCGs, will require a much more specific ethical code than hitherto used. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Methodological issues in the development of a national database for primary care groups and trusts

At the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre (NPCRDC) we have constructed a national database for all primary care groups (PCGs) in England. At its core, the database links information about population socio-economic and demographic characteristics to generic health status and to the organisation, resourcing and activities of general practice. In this paper we describe and discuss the problems with linking these data, and with defining the boundaries and the local populations of PCGs, given that they have been established on the basis of administrative expediency rather than geographical coherence. We then consider the implications of these difficulties for needs assessment in primary care groups.     

Sources of influence on medical practice

OBJECTIVES: To explore the opinion of general practitioners on the importance and legitimacy of sources of influence on medical practice. METHODS: General practitioners (n=723) assigned to Primary Care Teams (PCTs) in two Spanish regions were randomly selected to participate in this study. A self administered questionnaire was sent by mail and collected by hand. The dependent variable collected the opinion on different sources that exert influence on medical practice. Importance was measured with a 9 item scale while legitimacy was evaluated with 16 items measured with a 1 to 7 point Likert scale. RESULTS: The most important and legitimate sources of influence according to general practitioners were: training courses and scientific articles, designing self developed protocols and discussing with colleagues. The worst evaluated were: financial incentives and the role played by the pharmaceutical industry. CONCLUSIONS: The development of medical practice is determined by many factors, grouped around three big areas: organisational setting, professional system and social setting. The medical professional system is the one considered as being the most important and legitimate by general practitioners. Other strategies of influence, considered to be very important by the predominant management culture (financial incentives), are not considered to be so by general practitioners. These results, however, are not completely reliable as regards the real network of influences existing in medical practice, which reflect instead different "value systems".     

The impact of changes in incentives and governance on the motivation of dental practitioners

Recent changes to the system of remuneration and contracting arrangements with Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) has meant that dental practitioners in the UK have experienced several types of incentive and governance arrangements. This paper uses data from a qualitative study of 20 dental practitioners to examine the influence of different systems of incentives and governance on their motivational system. Results show that a perceived reduction in autonomy was the least acceptable aspect of the health reforms. The study also suggests that conflict between self-interested and altruistic motives may occur where medical professionals operate as independent contractors in a small business environment. Whilst dentists appeared to show altruistic motives towards their patients, priorities towards running an autonomous business enterprise meant that PCT managerial requirements, for example, to widen access were not welcomed, because of their impact on managerial autonomy. Moreover, whilst dentists' professional ethos appeared geared towards achieving technically high quality standards of work, this produced tensions against a background of cost containment in a fee-per-item system of remuneration. The paper raises issues such as the person-system interaction associated with professional and individual autonomy and the importance of reciprocity and fair payment.     

Going with the grain? General practitioners and the new NHS

A number of policy initiatives over the last few years have encouraged general practitioners (GPs) to participate in commissioning, as opposed to simply purchasing, health care. This role was reinforced in the white paper, The New NHS. A qualitative study of GPs in two health authorities uncovered not only concerns about the reforms which have since emerged in the medical and general press, but other issues which have been less frequently articulated. There was also evidence of goodwill towards professional colleagues, including those in social services departments. The preference for professional, as opposed to market relationships may help to secure the collaborative ethos desired by government. However, if the concerns the study uncovered are indicative of a more widespread response to the white paper, they suggest the need for careful support of developing Primary Care Groups (PCGs).     

Primary care groups and trusts: stages in a process of organizational evolution.

In this paper, the origins and early experiences of the new national network of primary care groups (PCGs) in the NHS are explored, emphasizing that they represent the latest stage in an evolutionary process in the development of primary care organizations. Using Greiner's five stages of organizational growth, an analysis is made of the development of PCGs and the future primary care trusts (PCTs). The author asserts that, having grown through creativity in the pre-1997 NHS, primary care organizations in the 'New NHS' are experiencing growth through direction, with a much greater degree of central control and management being brought to bear on PCGs. The likely future shape of PCGs and PCTs is then described, drawing on the analysis of PCGs within Greiner's framework for organizational growth. The paper concludes by setting out guidelines for managers and clinicians charged with the responsibility of developing PCGs and PCTs, based on the premise that these new organizational forms are not an end in themselves, but a stage in the organizational development of primary care in the NHS.     

The early days of primary care groups: general practitioners' perceptions

English primary care is currently undergoing radical reform. Primary care groups (PCGs), effectively compulsory federations of general practices, came into legal existence in April 1999. This paper contains a review of general practitioners' (GPs') initial perceptions of the impact of these reforms on practice and considers the wider issue of changes in professional autonomy. A random sample of 49 GPs from two adjacent health districts in the North of England were interviewed as part of a longitudinal qualitative study. One round of interviews took place 7 to 9 months after the creation of PCGs and a further round of interviews was carried out 6 months later. We were interested in GPs' knowledge of recently formed (PCGs') plans and priorities, the impact of PCG activity to date, and the predicted future impact of such activity. After the published priorities of PCGs had been identified, thematic content analysis was used to ascertain GPs' perceptions of those priorities. GPs were generally unaware of their PCGs' published priorities. The wider strategic role of PCGs in commissioning services was rarely alluded to. Although over a third of GPs reported no current impact of the PCG, the majority expected PCGs to have considerable impact. In particular, control, management and accountability arrangements were all perceived as central issues in the expected developments. Performance management arrangements related to specific clinical priorities were widely expected. Although the new arrangements were inspiring little enthusiasm, the reforms did not appear to threaten GPs sufficiently enough to provoke active resistance.     

Colonizing the new world of NHS management: the shifting power of professionals.

This paper explores the changing patterns of professional power and the struggle for control between doctors and managers in the UK NHS, by examining the role of clinical directors. Located at the nexus of managerial and professional power, clinical directors represent and embody the challenges to medicine through increased managerialism and the profession's response to it. An analysis of the role of clinical directors reveals the changes in power and jurisdiction that have been created through clinical management. A medical model of professional power illustrates how structural and ideological changes threaten medical dominance. However, clinical directors respond to the changes by creating new forms of expertise through managerial assimilation, to extend their jurisdiction and domain within the organization and in the market. This re-professionalization, rather than de-professionalization, by doctors raises questions about the shifting power balance between doctors and managers in the NHS and between doctors within the medical profession.     

Primary care trusts. No can do

Primary care trusts are already chronically short of staff and there is little evidence of workforce planning for the future. Some PCGs, managing sizeable budgets, have no finance staff at all. PCTs will face a shortage of GPs and difficulty retaining nurses. PCTs should make sure they are involved in their local workforce confederation in order to restructure the workforce.