Making the case for a fracture liaison service: a qualitative study of the experiences of clinicians and service managers

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Andrew Judge⁴  Cyrus Cooper⁴  M Kassim Javaid⁴  Laura Graham¹  Andrew Farmer³  Rachael Gooberman-Hill²  Sarah Drew⁵ 

[1] Neurosciences, Trauma and Specialist Surgery, Oxford University Hospital Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK;School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Level 1, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK;Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK;MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton,, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK;Oxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK

关键词: Qualitative research;    Business cases;    Commissioning;    Hip fracture;    Osteoporosis;   

Others  :  1229499
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0722-z

 received in 2015-03-25, accepted in 2015-09-16,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

To develop services, healthcare professionals must make business cases to managerial bodies within Hospital Trusts and if approved, to commissioning bodies. Patients with hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fracture. To prevent this, guidance recommends structuring fracture prevention services around coordinator based models. These are known as Fracture Liaison Services (FLS).

Methods

33 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals with experience of making business cases for FLS. Data was analysed thematically.

Results

Challenges in the development of business cases included collecting all the relevant data and negotiating compartmentalised budgets that impeded service development. Participants described communication and cooperation between providers and commissioners as variable. They felt financial considerations were the most important factor in funding decisions, while improved quality of care was less influential. Other factors included national guidelines and political priorities. The personalities of clinicians championing services, and the clinical interests of commissioners were seen to influence the decision-making process, suggesting that participants felt that decisions were not always made on the basis of evidence-based care. Effective strategies included ways of providing support, demonstrating potential cost effectiveness and improved quality of care. Using a range of sources including audit data collected on the successful Glasgow FLS, and improving cooperation between stakeholders was advocated. Participants felt that the work of commissioners and providers should be better integrated and suggested strategies for doing this.

Conclusions

This study provides information to healthcare professionals about how best to develop business cases for FLS. We conclude with recommendations on how to develop effective cases. These include using guidance such as toolkits, aligning the aims of FLS with national priorities and benchmarking services against comparators. Introducing a ‘Local Champion’ to work alongside the service manager and establishing a multi-disciplinary working team would facilitate communication between stakeholders. Involving commissioners in service design would help integrate the roles of purchasers and providers.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Drew et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Le Grand J, Bartlett W. The theory of quasi-markets. In: Quasi-markets and social policy. Barlett GLG W, editor. Macmillan, Basingstoke; 1993: p.13-34.
• [2]Commissioning Policy: Ethical framework for priority setting and resource allocation. England, NHS; 2013.
• [3]NHS. A short guide to NHS Foundation Trusts: NHS. London: Department of Health 2005.
• [4]World class commissoning. Vision. London: Department of Health; 2007.
• [5]Bravo Vergel Y, Ferguson B. Difficult commissioning choices: lessons from English primary care trusts. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2006; 11(3):150-4.
• [6]Checkland K, Snow S, McDermott I, Harrison S, Coleman A. ‘Animateurs’ and animation: what makes a good commissioning manager? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2012; 17(1):11-7.
• [7]Clarke A, Taylor-Phillips S, Swan J, Gkeredakis E, Mills P, Powell J et al. Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002714.
• [8]Checkland K, Allen P, Coleman A, Segar J, McDermott I, Harrison S et al. Accountable to whom, for what? An exploration of the early development of Clinical Commissioning Groups in the English NHS. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003769.
• [9]Petsoulas C, Allen P, Checkland K, Coleman A, Segar J, Peckham S et al. Views of NHS commissioners on commissioning support provision. Evidence from a qualitative study examining the early development of clinical commissioning groups in England. BMJ Open. 2014;4(10). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005970.
• [10]Taylor-Phillips S, Clarke A, Grove A, Swan J, Parsons H, Gkeredakis E et al.. Coproduction in commissioning decisions: is there an association with decision satisfaction for commissioners working in the NHS? A cross-sectional survey 2010/2011. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(6): Article ID e004810
• [11]Sampson F, O'Cathain A, Strong M, Pickin M, Esmonde L. Commissioning processes in primary care trusts: a repeated cross-sectional survey of health care commissioners in England. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2012; 17(S1):31-9.
• [12]Zachariadis M, Oborn E, Barrett M, Zollinger-Read P. Leadership of healthcare commissioning networks in England: a mixed-methods study on clinical commissioning groups. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002112.
• [13]Ashman I, Willcocks S. Engaging with clinical commissioning: the attitudes of general practitioners in East Lancashire. Quality in Primary Care. 2014; 22(2):91-9.
• [14]Sabey A, Hardy H. Prepared for commissioning? A qualitative study into the views of recently qualified GPs. Education for Primary Care. 2013; 24(5):314-20.
• [15]Shaw SE, Smith JA, Porter A, Rosen R, Mays N. The work of commissioning: a multisite case study of healthcare commissioning in England's NHS. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003341.
• [16]Marsh D, Currie C, Brown P, Cooper A, Elliott J, Griffiths R, et al. The care of patients with fragility fractures. London: British Orthopaedic Association. 2007.
• [17]Chesser TJS, Handley R, Swift C. New NICE guideline to improve outcomes for hip fracture patients. Injury. 2011; 42(8):727-9.
• [18]Abrahamsen B, van Staa T, Ariely R, Olson M, Cooper C. Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review. Osteoporosis International. 2009; 20(10):1633-50.
• [19]Mitchell P. Fracture Liaison Services: the UK experience. Osteoporosis International. 2011; 22:487-94.
• [20]Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center JR et al.. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2013; 24(2):393-406.
• [21]Treml J, Husk J, Lowe D, Vasilakis N. Falling standards, broken promises: Report of the national audit of falls and bone health in older people 2010. London: Royal College of Physicians. 2011.
• [22]Mitchell P. Fracture Liaison Services: resource pack: Novartis. 2010.
• [23]National Osteoporosis Society. From zero to FLS: Implementation and beyond National Osteoporosis Society2010.
• [24]Judge A, Javaid K, Cooper C, Arden N, Farmer A, Prieto-Alhambra D, et al. Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within the South Central Region. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR); 2012.
• [25]The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2008.
• [26]Baker SE, Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough?: National Centre for Research Methods. 2012.
• [27]Ayres L. Semi-Structured Interview. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2008. p. 811-2.
• [28]Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3(2):77-101.
• [29]Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000; 320(7227):114-6.
• [30]Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, London; 2003.
• [31]Our NHS: our future. Department of Health: NHS next stage review - interim report, London; 2007.
• [32]Eisman JA, Bogoch ER, Dell R, Harrington JT, McKinney RE, McLellan A et al.. Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2012; 27(10):2039-46.
• [33]Older people and dementia team. Prime Minister's challenge on dementia - delivering major improvements in dementia care and research by 2015. Leeds: Department of Health. 2012.
• [34]Health and Social Care Information Centre. Hospital Episode Statistics.http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hes.
• [35]Sinclair E, Radford K, Grant M, Terry J. Developing stroke-specific vocational rehabilitation: a soft systems analysis of current service provision. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2014; 36(5):409-17.
• [36]Shaw SE, Smith JA, Porter A, Rosen R, Mays N. The work of commissioning: a multisite case study of healthcare commissioning in England's NHS. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003341-e. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003341.
• [37]NHS England. Putting patients first: The NHS England business plan for 2013/14 - 2015/16. NHS England.
• [38]Gridley K, Spiers G, Aspinal F, Bernard S, Atkin K, Parker G. Can general practitioner commissioning deliver equity and excellence? Evidence from two studies of service improvement in the English NHS. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2012; 17(2):87-93.
• [39]Lilly E. Fracture Liaison Implementation Programme (FLIP): Eli Lilly. 2014.
• [40]Seale C, Silverman D. Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. The European Journal of Public Health. 1997; 7(4):379-84.
• [41]National Toolkits. International Osteoporosis Foundation Accessed 18th February 2015
• [42]Harvey Walsh Limited. Osteoporosis service development model. Cheshire: Harvey Walsh Limited. 2008.
• [43]Milton Keynes Clinical Commissioning Group. CDG template for approval in principle for service change or new service. Milton Keynes: Milton Keynes Clinical Commissioning Group. 2012.
• [44]Skelton D, Neil F. NHS Greater Glasgow and Cycle strategy for osteoporosis and falls prevention 2006–2010: an evaluation 2007–2009: Health G West and Glasgow Caledonian University. 2009.