首页> 外文OA文献 >Commissioning in health, education and social care : Models, research bibliography and in-depth review of joint commissioning between health and social care agencies. Technical report
【2h】

Commissioning in health, education and social care : Models, research bibliography and in-depth review of joint commissioning between health and social care agencies. Technical report

机译:卫生,教育和社会保健方面的调试:模型,研究书目和对卫生和社会护理机构之间联合委托的深入审查。技术报告

摘要

What do we want to know? The way that public services are organised and work has changed considerably over the last 25 years. One of the main changes has been to divide the function of public agencies into service purchasers which ‘commission’ or ‘purchase’ services on behalf of the public and service providers which provide the services. This change has been introduced across all public sectors in many different countries. The broad aims of this research were to: identify research evidence on ‘commissioning’ or ‘public service purchasing’ in education, health and/or social welfare in the UK and other countries investigate the impact of ‘joint commissioning’ of health, education and/or social welfare services identify the factors which influence the impact of joint commissioning of health, education and/or social welfare services Who wants to know and why? This research project was funded by The National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation (NIHR SDO) programme. This evidence may be helpful in improving the practice of commissioning and/or undertaking better quality research on commissioning in the future. What did we find? This project identified a far larger evidence base for service commissioning in health, education and social care than was previously known. A searchable database of research studies of commissioning in health, education and social welfare can be found at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/webdatabases/Intro.aspx?ID=22 The proposed loose typology of commissioning will, if adopted, make it easier for future primary and secondary research to identify which type or types of commissioning are being investigated. The in-depth review on the impacts of joint commissioning between agencies in sectors identified a comparatively small number of low quality studies. The evidence about the impacts of joint commissioning cannot therefore be regarded as compelling. The evidence about the factors that affect commissioning was judged to be of better quality. Synthesis of the results of these studies highlight the importance to successful joint commissioning of: • trusting relationships between commissioners, and how these are built up over time by continuity of staff; • Clarity over responsibilities and legal frameworks, particularly in the context of any shared or pooled financial arrangements; • The importance of coterminosity between organisational geographical boundaries; • The development of clear structures, information systems and communications between stakeholders. Given the importance of joint working it is clear that these findings have resonance for the development of structures and relations and practices in the new NHS commissioning landscape. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the new reforms provide the opportunity for the conduct of much-needed rigorous evaluative research on the impacts of different forms of commissioning. However, in order to realise this, it is imperative that any proposed changes are introduced in such a way as to create the conditions for rigorous comparative evaluative research on a sufficient scale to begin to address questions about the impact of different types of commissioning. How did we get these results? The project was completed in three stages consistent with the research questions addressed. A scoping literature review and an online stakeholder questionnaire on models and theories of commissioning provided information on practices, and models and theories of commissioning. The systematic review questions were addressed using systematic review methods: • Comprehensive and systematic searching for empirical research evidence on the impact of commissioning using multiple sources. • The selection of studies for the review based on pre-specified criteria. • Selection of a subset of studies for inclusion in the in-depth review that address the question of the impact of joint commissioning between health and social care agencies and factors that affect impact. • Detailed data extraction and quality assessment of the selected subset of studies. • Narrative synthesis of impacts and factors affecting the impact of joint commissioning between health and social care agencies.
机译:我们想知道什么?在过去的25年中,公共服务的组织和工作方式发生了很大变化。主要变化之一是将公共机构的职能划分为代表“公共”或“购买”服务的服务购买者和代表服务的服务提供者。这一变化已在许多不同国家的所有公共部门中引入。这项研究的广泛目标是:在英国和其他国家/地区,确定有关在教育,健康和/或社会福利方面的“委托”或“公共服务购买”的研究证据,以调查“联合委托”对健康,教育和社会的影响。 /或社会福利服务确定影响卫生,教育和/或社会福利服务联合委托的影响的因素。谁想知道为什么?该研究项目由美国国立卫生研究院服务提供与组织研究院(NIHR SDO)计划资助。该证据可能有助于改善调试的实践和/或将来对调试进行更好的质量研究。我们发现了什么?该项目为卫生,教育和社会护理领域的服务调试确定了比以前更大的证据基础。有关健康,教育和社会福利方面的委托研究的可搜索数据库,可以在以下网站找到:http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/webdatabases/Intro.aspx?ID=22可以使将来的基础和辅助研究更容易确定正在调查的调试类型。对部门间机构之间的联合委托的影响进行的深入审查确定了相对较少的低质量研究。因此,关于联合调试影响的证据不能被认为具有说服力。有关影响调试的因素的证据被认为质量较好。这些研究结果的综合突显了成功联合进行以下工作的重要性:•信任专员之间的关系,以及随着员工的连续性如何逐步建立这种关系; •明确责任和法律框架,特别是在任何共享或集中财务安排的情况下; •组织地理边界之间确定性的重要性; •建立清晰的结构,信息系统和利益相关者之间的沟通。鉴于联合工作的重要性,很明显,这些发现对新的NHS调试环境中的结构,关系和实践的发展产生了共鸣。此外,也许是最重要的是,新的改革为各种形式的委托的影响进行急需的严格评估研究提供了机会。但是,为了实现这一点,必须以任何方式引入任何提议的更改,以便为进行足够规模的严格比较评估研究创造条件,以开始解决有关不同类型调试的影响的问题。我们如何获得这些结果的?该项目分三个阶段完成,与所研究的问题相吻合。有关调试模型和理论的范围界定文献回顾和在线利益相关者问卷调查提供了有关实践,调试模型和理论的信息。使用系统评价方法解决了系统评价问题:•全面系统地搜索使用多种来源对委托产生影响的实证研究证据。 •根据预先指定的标准选择要研究的研究。 •选择一部分要纳入深入审核的研究子集,以解决卫生和社会护理机构之间联合委托的影响以及影响影响的因素的问题。 •对所选研究子集的详细数据提取和质量评估。 •叙述性综合影响和影响卫生和社会护理机构之间联合委托的影响的因素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号