Shifting Services from Secondary to Primary Care: Stakeholders' Views of the Barriers

Objectives: To identify the barriers to shifting services from secondary to primary care perceived by the involved stakeholders. Methods: Forty-five semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from primary care, acute and community hospitals, purchasers (health authorities) and other agencies involved in two contrasting initiatives to shift services. Results: Stakeholders perceived similar barriers in the two initiatives: disinvesting from existing providers; lack of information on activity and costs; uncertainty over the quality of the proposed alternative service; concern about an increasing workload in primary care; diversity of views within primary care; difficulties in communication between the many agencies involved; and lack of leadership by purchasers. Conclusions: Service shifts which involve disinvestment from existing providers and collaboration between agencies with different views and interests will inevitably face a range of barriers. Attempts to shift services by disinvesting from secondary care are likely to encounter the greatest difficulties. Attempts to shift without concomitant disinvestment may also be slow because of the difficulties of multi-agency collaboration. Frustration will be reduced if those involved have a realistic understanding of the difficulties rather than being surprised and overwhelmed by them.

[1]  H. McLeod,et al.  Evaluation of total purchasing pilots in England and Scotland and implications for primary care groups in England: personal interviews and analysis of routine data , 1998, BMJ.

[2]  B. Ferguson,et al.  Shifting Finance Out of Acute Hospitals , 1998, Journal of health services research & policy.

[3]  S. Wyke,et al.  What is total purchasing? , 1997 .

[4]  B. Leese,et al.  What will a primary care led NHS mean for GP workload? the problem of the lack of an evidence base , 1997, BMJ.

[5]  C. Hine,et al.  What does locality commissioning in Avon offer? Retrospective descriptive evaluation , 1997, BMJ.

[6]  N. Fulop,et al.  Does the National Health Service want Hospital-at-Home? , 1997, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[7]  Peter C Smith,et al.  Risk and the GP budget holder , 1997 .

[8]  D. Evans A stakeholder analysis of developments at the primary and secondary care interface. , 1996, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  M. Pringle,et al.  Primary care: choice and opportunity , 1996, BMJ.

[10]  A Scott,et al.  Primary or secondary care? What can economics contribute to evaluation at the interface? , 1996, Journal of public health medicine.

[11]  P. Lachmann,et al.  Towards a high-trust NHS : proposals for minimally-invasive reform , 1996 .

[12]  J. Munro,et al.  Changing clinical behaviour on a city‐wide scale: lessons from the FACTS project , 1996 .

[13]  S. Goss Bringing housing into community care , 1996 .

[14]  R. Harrison,et al.  A Review of Innovations in Primary Care , 1995 .

[15]  D Wilkin,et al.  Specialist outreach clinics in general practice , 1994, BMJ.

[16]  S. Hornby Collaborative Care: Interprofessional, Interagency and Interpersonal , 1993 .

[17]  P. Bundred,et al.  Management of joint and soft tissue injuries in three general practices: value of on-site physiotherapy. , 1993, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[18]  C. Huxham,et al.  Introducing Collaborative Advantage: Achieving Inter‐organizational Effectiveness through Meta‐strategy , 1992 .

[19]  A. O’Cathain,et al.  Cost effectiveness of minor surgery in general practice: a prospective comparison with hospital practice. , 1992, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[20]  Rodney Brooke Managing the enabling authority , 1989 .

[21]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .