Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep 29:10:e58.
doi: 10.5334/ijic.573.

Collaborative working within UK NHS secondary care and across sectors for COPD and the impact of peer review: qualitative findings from the UK National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project

Carol Rivas  1 , Stephen Abbott, Stephanie J C Taylor, Aileen Clarke, C Michael Roberts, Robert Stone, Chris Griffiths
Affiliations

Collaborative working within UK NHS secondary care and across sectors for COPD and the impact of peer review: qualitative findings from the UK National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project

Carol Rivas et al. Int J Integr Care. .

Abstract

Introduction: WE INVESTIGATED THE EFFECTS ON COLLABORATIVE WORK WITHIN THE UK NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (NHS) OF AN INTERVENTION FOR SERVICE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: informal, structured, reciprocated, multidisciplinary peer review with feedback and action plans. The setting was care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Theory and methods: We analysed semi-structured interviews with 43 hospital respiratory consultants, nurses and general managers at 24 intervention and 11 control sites, as part of a UK randomised controlled study, the National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP), using Scott's conceptual framework for action (inter-organisational, intra-organisational, inter-professional and inter-individual). Three areas of care targeted by NCROP involved collaboration across primary and secondary care.

Results: Hospital respiratory department collaborations with commissioners and hospital managers varied. Analysis suggested that this is related to team responses to barriers. Clinicians in unsuccessful collaborations told 'atrocity stories' of organisational, structural and professional barriers to service improvement. The others removed barriers by working with government and commissioner agendas to ensure continued involvement in patients' care. Multidisciplinary peer review facilitated collaboration between participants, enabling them to meet, reconcile differences and exchange ideas across boundaries.

Conclusions: The data come from the first randomised controlled trial of organisational peer review, adding to research into UK health service collaborative work, which has had a more restricted focus on inter-professional relations. NCROP peer review may only modestly improve collaboration but these data suggest it might be more effective than top-down exhortations to change when collaboration both across and within organisations is required.

Keywords: collaboration; inter-organizational; inter-professional; quality improvement; respiratory disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Secretary of State for Health. The new NHS. London: Stationery Office; 1997.
    1. Scott D. Inter-organisational collaboration in family-centred practice: a framework for analysis and action. Australian Social Work. 2005;58(2):132–41.
    1. Mackay L, Soothill K, Webb C. Troubled times: the context of interprofessional collaboration. In: Soothill K, Mackay L, Webb C, editors. Interprofessional relations in health care. London: Edward Arnold; 1995.
    1. Hudson B. Collaboration in Social Welfare: a framework for analysis. Policy and Politics. 1987;15(3):175–82.
    1. Roberts CM, Buckingham RJ, Stone RA, Lowe D, Pearson MG. The UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP)—A feasibility study of large scale clinical service peer review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. [in press] - PubMed