How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis
- PMID: 29122801
- PMCID: PMC5695513
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018422
How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis
Abstract
Objectives: From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.
Design: We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs).
Setting/participants: We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.
Results: Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.
Conclusions: Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.
Keywords: clinical commissioning groups; conflicts of interest; primary care.
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
References
-
- National Audit Office. Cross-government conflicts of interest. London: National Audit Office; 2015.
-
- National Audit Office. Managing conflicts of interest in NHS clinical commissioning groups. London: National Audit Office; 2015.
-
- Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J financ econ 1976;3:305–60. 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X - DOI
-
- Smith PC, Street A, Smith PC, et al. . Concepts and challenges in measuring the performance of health care organizations Jones A, The Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2012:341–9.
-
- Hart O. Corporate Governance: some theory and implications. Econ J 1995;105:678–89. 10.2307/2235027 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources