Commissioning for long-term conditions:
what do commissioners actually do?
Dr Judith Smith
Director of Policy, Nuffield Trust
The Commissioning Show, Excel, London
12 June 2013
© Nuffield Trust
Agenda
• Our study
• What we found about the practice of commissioning
• Implications
• Questions raised
© Nuffield Trust
Our study
13 April 2015
© Nuffield Trust
Overview
Aim:
To explore the ways in which NHS commissioning can be
enacted to assure high quality care for people living with longterm conditions
Timescale:
Two years (Mar 2010 – Feb 2012)
Funding:
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services
and Delivery Research programme
© Nuffield Trust
Overview (2)
Approach
Broadly ethnographic, using mixed methods, and with regular
feedback to sites
Selection of study sites
Quantitative metrics summarising 200 indicators used to
identify a cohort ‘high performing’ primary care trusts (PCTs)
who were invited to take part
Data collection
Observation of meetings (n=27)
Semi-structured interviews (n=124)
Informal update interviews (n=20)
Analysis of documents (n=345).
© Nuffield Trust
Three commissioning communities
Somerset
Wirral
Calderdale
Diabetes
Stroke
Dementia
© Nuffield Trust
Commissioning activity being tracked
3 new services which began
operating
3 developments being discussed
and planned
Somerset - Remodelling of diabetes
care into a three tier service
Wirral – Review of diabetic podiatry to
resolve operational problems
Somerset – An early supported
discharge (ESD) service for patients
recovering from a stroke
Calderdale – Review of existing
provision of diabetes care and
discussion of plans for strategic
remodelling
Wirral - Establishment of a new
community-based service for diagnosis
and treatment of dementia
Calderdale – A strategic review of all
dementia care
© Nuffield Trust
What we found out about the
practice of commissioning
13 April 2015
© Nuffield Trust
1
The practice of commissioning
Assumption
A neat cycle of:
•
•
•
•
•
needs assessment
service specification
contracting
monitoring
review
What we found
• Something much messier, with
much more going on;
• Process not happening
sequentially;
• Not fitting an annual cycle;
• Co-ordination and facilitation are
big parts of commissioning
practice;
• Support for implementation also a
role for commissioners.
© Nuffield Trust
2
The labour of commissioning
Assumption
Commissioning is
concerned with
incentivising other
people to do some work
What we found
• A huge amount of time and effort
goes into commissioning;
• The scale of effort that goes into
commissioning may not relate
directly to that of the service;
• Lots of labour is associated with
collecting and handling data;
• Decisions about whether to give
priority to a commissioning task
may be based partly on the
resources available to do the work.
© Nuffield Trust
3
Identifying the commissioners
Assumption
What we found
• Multiple and ambiguous roles;
Commissioners are
people with money to
distribute to meet
identified needs
• Providers often involved in
commissioning tasks and events;
• Commissioners helping to
shape, track and undertake
implementation;
• Shared responsibilities across
councils and PCTs;
• Clinicians in many different roles.
© Nuffield Trust
4
The role of money
Assumption
Commissioning
decisions will be guided
largely by concerns
about money
What we found
• Money did not seem to be
central to a lot of the
discussions we observed;
• Money often appeared
late on in the story;
• The major decisions
appeared often to happen
in parallel to the ‘nittygritty’ of commissioning.
© Nuffield Trust
5
The nature of change
Assumption
Commissioning is a
mechanism which
allows you to make
abrupt and radical
changes to service
provision (decommissioning and recommissioning)
What we found
• Change can be very slow to bring
about;
• Commissioners are sensitive
about disrupting the local health
economy;
• Change often entails moving staff
between organisations;
• Easier to bring in something new
than to decommission;
• Senior and sustained project
management is critical.
© Nuffield Trust
6
National ‘guidance’ in a local context
Assumption
Local decisions are
made by
commissioners in
response to locally
identified needs.
What we found
• Top-down impetus to get things
done – this makes a significant
difference;
• A wide range of national strategies
and models of what to do;
• Locally set priorities tend to be
within this national context;
• Savvy commissioners use the
national impetus to press ahead
with local work.
© Nuffield Trust
Implications
13 April 2015
© Nuffield Trust
Implications
Commissioning for long-term conditions is made up of
multiple and labour-intensive processes
•
Some of these align with the commissioning cycle, others
do not – some are conspicuous by their absence;
•
Commissioning practice is less often focused on whole
programmes of funding and service provision;
•
It tends to be about more marginal elements of services;
•
Decommissioning rarely features.
© Nuffield Trust
Implications (2)
In commissioning care for people with long-term
conditions, the relational aspects tend to dominate
•
Lots of time and effort goes into service design and
specification, stakeholder engagement, planning and
convening;
•
This work is often critical to bringing about change, but in
examples of effective commissioning, there was a
recognition of when it was time to ‘get transactional’;
•
Questions for the reformed NHS include whether it can
afford so much relational commissioning.
© Nuffield Trust
Implications (3)
The cycle of commissioning lends some order and routine
to commissioning
•
It helps commissioners to tie in with the financial planning
cycle, contracting, etc.;
•
Long-term conditions are less easily ‘commodified’ than
elective services;
•
They may require a different approach to risk-sharing and
contracting, with providers incentivised across
organisations.
© Nuffield Trust
Implications (4)
There are some critical enablers of commissioning
practice
•
Skilled managers, especially at middle-management level
– boundary-spanners;
•
Accurate and timely data;
•
A judicious amount of meetings and workshops;
•
Sustained involvement of clinicians;
•
Careful use of national guidance at local level;
•
Clarity about the outcomes expected of commissioning;
© Nuffield Trust
Questions raised
1. When it comes to the labour of commissioning, how much
is too much?
2. To what extent does the blurring of roles challenge the
commissioner/provider split? Does this matter?
3. Should money have a more central and specific role in
commissioning conversations?
4. Are commissioners held back by caution, or by
constraints? Will GP commissioners be more radical?
© Nuffield Trust
Acknowledgement and disclaimer
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research
Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project number
08/1806/264).
The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR HSDR programme or the
Department of Health.
© Nuffield Trust
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
Sign-up for our newsletter
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/newsletter
Follow us on Twitter
(http://twitter.com/NuffieldTrust)
© Nuffield Trust