Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: An interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships.

Clicks: 414
ID: 90512
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #5 of 10 articles by views in health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health-care commissioning decisions has always been a contentious issue. However, the current moves towards Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) in England's NHS are viewed as posing the risk of reducing the impact of current structures for PPI.To understand how different members in clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) understand PPI as currently functioning in their decision-making practices, and the implications of the STPs for it.Thematic analysis of 18 semi-structured interviews with CCG governing body voting members (e.g. clinicians and lay members), non-voting governing body members (e.g. Healthwatch representatives) and CCG staff with roles focussed on PPI, recruited from CCGs in South London STPs.There are contestations amongst CCG members regarding not only what PPI is, but also the role that it currently plays and could play in commissioning decision making in the context of STPs. Three main themes were identified: PPI is 'going out' into the community; PPI as a disruptive power; and PPI as co-production, a 'utopian dream'?Long-standing issues distinctive to PPI in NHS prioritization decisions are resurfacing with the moves towards STPs, particularly in relation to contradictions between the rhetoric of 'partnership' and reorganizations that foster more top-down control. The interviews reveal pervasive distrusts across a number of levels that are counterproductive to the collaborations upon which STPs rely. And it is argued that such distrust and contestations will continue until a formalized space for PPI in STP priority-setting is created.
Reference Key
coultas2019patienthealth Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Coultas, Clare;Kieslich, Katharina;Littlejohns, Peter;
Journal health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
Year 2019
DOI
10.1111/hex.12948
URL
Keywords
trust patient and public involvement co-production activism priority-setting england's national health service sustainability and transformation partnerships clinical commissioning groups integrated care systems

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.