Tackling disinvestment in health care services: The views of resource allocators in the English NHS
Abstract
Purpose: – The aims of this paper are to explore the experiences of budget holders within the English National Health Service (NHS), in their attempts to implement programmes of disinvestment, and to consider factors which influence the success (or otherwise) of this activity. Design/methodology/approach: – Between 24 January and 15 March 2011 semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of 12 Primary Care Trusts in England. Interviews focussed on: understanding of the term “disinvestment”; current activities, and perceived determinants of successful disinvestment decision making and implementation. Data were organised into themes according to standard qualitative data coding practices. Findings: – Findings indicate that experiences of disinvestment are varied and that organisations are currently adopting a range of approaches. There are a number of apparently influential determinants of disinvestment which relate to both health system features and organisational characteristics. According to the experiences of the interviewees, many of the easier disinvestment options have now been taken and more ambitious plans, which require wider engagement and more thorough project management, will be required in the future. Research limitations/implications: – Findings from the research suggest that issues around understanding and usage of disinvestment terminology should be addressed and that a more in-depth and ethnographic research agenda will be of most value in moving forward both the theory and practice of disinvestment. Originality/value: – This research suggests that, in the English NHS at least, there is a disjuncture between common usage of the term “disinvestment” and the way that it has previously been understood by the wider research community. In addition to this, the research also highlights a broader range of potential determinants of disinvestment than are considered in the extant literature.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies have described that support, especially from clinical leaders and the general public, is essential for the success of the disinvestment process.
“support, especially from clinical leaders, but from the general public as well, was found to be essential for the success of the disinvestment process [6, 33, 34].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [6]
Two previous studies found that citizens and policymakers expressed reluctance to disrupt treatments because of negative effects on current patients.
“This has also been found in two previous studies in which citizens and policymakers expressed a reluctance to disrupt treatments because of the negative effect this may have on current patients, e.g. anxiety because of losing the current treatment option and side-effects of stopping/changing treatments [6, 37].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [6]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rotteveel, A. H., Lambooij, M. S., van de Rijt, J. J. A., van Exel, J., Moons, K. G. M., & de Wit, G. A. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06298-3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Daniels, T., Williams, I., Robinson, S., & Spence, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Curtin University (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Health Organization and Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-10-28
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 762-780
- ISSN
- 1477-7266 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1585815739
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 6.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Organization and Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham) (acceptedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
- Keywords
- divestiture, primary care trusts, National Health Service, health care budgeting, decision-making, implementation, organizational characteristics, project management
- MeSH terms
- Budgets, England, Financing, Government, Hospitals, Public, Humans, State Medicine, Qualitative Research, Resource Allocation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review