Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. Methods The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. Results One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. Conclusions Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. Trial registration Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

After severe COVID-19 disease, many patients will experience a variety of problems with normal functioning and will require rehabilitation services to overcome these problems. The principles of and evidence on rehabilitation will allow an effective response. These include a simple screening process; use of a multidisciplinary expert team; four evidence-based classes of intervention (exercise, practice, psychosocial support, and education particularly about self-management); and a range of tailored interventions for other problems. The large number of COVID-19 patients needing rehabilitation coupled with the backlog remaining from the crisis will challenge existing services. The principles underpinning vital service reconfigurations needed are discussed.

Background Good quality midwifery care saves the lives of women and babies. Continuity of midwife carer (CMC), a key component of good quality midwifery care, results in better clinical outcomes, higher care satisfaction and enhanced caregiver experience. However, CMC uptake has tended to be small scale or transient. We used realist evaluation in one Scottish health board to explore implementation of CMC as part of the Scottish Government 2017 maternity plan. Methods Participatory research, quality improvement and iterative data collection methods were used to collect data from a range of sources including facilitated team meetings, local and national meetings, quality improvement and service evaluation surveys, audits, interviews and published literature. Data analysis developed context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explore and inform three initial programme theories, which were refined into an overarching theory of what works for whom and in what context. Results Trusting relationships across all organisational levels are the context in which CMC works. However, building these relationships during implementation requires good leadership and effective change management to drive whole system change and foster trust across all practice and organisational boundaries. Trusting relationships between midwives and women were valued and triggered a commitment to provide high quality care; CMC team relationships supported improvements in ways of working and sustained practice, and relationships between midwives and providers in different care models either sustained or constrained implementation. Continuity enabled midwives to work to full skillset and across women’s care journey, which in turn changed their perspective of how they provided care and of women’s care needs. In addition to building positive relationships, visible and supportive leadership encourages engagement by ensuring midwives feel safe, valued and informed. Conclusion Leadership that builds trusting relationships across all practice and organisational boundaries develops the context for successful implementation of CMC. These relationships then become the context that enables CMC to grow and flourish. Trusting relationships, working to full skill set and across women’s care journey trigger changes in midwifery practice. Implementing and sustaining CMC within NHS organisational settings requires significant reconfiguration of services at all levels, which requires effective leadership and cannot rely solely on ground-up change.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk to the global population. Maternity care in the UK was subject to many iterations of guidance on how best to reconfigure services to keep women, their families and babies, and healthcare professionals safe. Parents who experience a pregnancy loss or perinatal death require particular care and support. PUDDLES is an international collaboration investigating the experiences of recently bereaved parents who suffered a late miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death during the global COVID-19 pandemic, in seven countries. In this study, we aim to present early findings from qualitative work undertaken with recently bereaved parents in the United Kingdom about how access to healthcare and support services was negotiated during the pandemic. Methods In-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with parents ( N  = 24) who had suffered a late miscarriage ( n  = 5; all mothers), stillbirth ( n  = 16; 13 mothers, 1 father, 1 joint interview involving both parents), or neonatal death ( n  = 3; all mothers). Data were analysed using a template analysis with the aim of investigating bereaved parents’ access to services, care, and networks of support, during the pandemic after their bereavement. Results All parents had experience of utilising reconfigured maternity and/or neonatal, and bereavement care services during the pandemic. The themes utilised in the template analysis were: 1) The Shock & Confusion Associated with Necessary Restrictions to Daily Life; 2) Fragmented Care and Far Away Families; 3) Keeping Safe by Staying Away; and 4) Impersonal Care and Support Through a Screen. Results suggest access to maternity, neonatal, and bereavement care services were all significantly reduced, and parents’ experiences were notably affected by service reconfigurations. Conclusions Our findings, whilst preliminary, are important to document now, to help inform care and service provision as the pandemic continues and to provide learning for ongoing and future health system shocks. We draw conclusions on how to enable development of safe and appropriate services during this pandemic and any future health crises, to best support parents who experience a pregnancy loss or whose babies die.

Asymmetry of product–service systems, that is, the presentation of services that does not match the expectations of stakeholders, often leads to inefficient services. To address design asymmetry in service systems, this study proposes a stakeholder-centric methodology for failure touchpoint identification and service reconfiguration. Grounded in the principles of multi-stakeholder value co-creation, the framework involves a three-phase process: systematic identification of failure-prone touchpoints through tripartite analysis (enterprise, service personnel, and user perspectives), generation of reconfiguration alternatives aligned with prioritized stakeholder requirements, and multi-criteria decision-making to optimize service configuration. The methodology achieves design symmetry by integrating stakeholder evaluations across failure diagnosis, causal analysis, and solution validation phases. A case study on a visitor management system demonstrates significant improvements in service quality (overall score increased from 0.70 to 0.81), validating the approach’s efficacy. This research bridges the gap in existing studies by balancing multi-stakeholder interests, offering a novel contribution to service design literature.

Background Reconfiguration of urgent and emergency care services often increases travel time/distance for patients to reach an appropriate facility. Evidence of the effects of reconfiguration is important for local communities and commissioners and providers of health services. Methods We performed a systematic review of the evidence regarding effects of service reconfigurations that increase the time/distance for some patients to reach an urgent and emergency care (UEC) facility. We searched seven bibliographic databases from 2000 to February 2019 and used citation tracking and reference lists to identify additional studies. We included studies of any design that compared outcomes for people with conditions requiring emergency treatment before and after service reconfiguration with an associated change in travel time/distance to access UEC. Studies had to be conducted in the UK or other developed countries. Data extraction and quality assessment (using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for quasi-experimental studies) were undertaken by a single reviewer with a sample checked for accuracy and consistency. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies. Overall strength of evidence was assessed using a previously published method that considers volume, quality and consistency. Results We included 12 studies, of which six were conducted in the USA, two in the UK and four in other European countries. The studies used a variety of observational designs, with before–after and cohort designs being most common. Only two studies included an independent control site/sites where no reconfiguration had taken place. The reconfigurations evaluated in these studies reported relatively small effects on average travel times/distance. Discussion For studies of general UEC populations, there was no convincing evidence as to whether reconfiguration affected mortality risk. However, evidence of increased risk was identified from studies of patients with acute myocardial infarction, particularly 1 to 4 years after reconfiguration. Evidence for other conditions was inconsistent or very limited. Conclusions We found insufficient evidence to determine whether increased distance to UEC increases mortality risk for the general population of people requiring UEC, although this conclusion may not extend to people with specific conditions.

Background Pregnant and postpartum women were identified as having particular vulnerability to severe symptomatology of SARS-CoV-2 infection, so maternity services significantly reconfigured their care provision. We examined the experiences and perceptions of maternity care staff who provided care during the pandemic in South London, United Kingdom – a region of high ethnic diversity with varied levels of social complexity. Methods We conducted a qualitative interview study, as part of a service evaluation between August and November 2020, using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a range of staff ( N  = 29) working in maternity services. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory analysis appropriate to cross-disciplinary health research. Analysis & findings Maternity healthcare professionals provided their views, experiences, and perceptions of delivering care during the pandemic. Analysis rendered three emergent themes regarding decision-making during reconfigured maternity service provision, organised into pathways: 1) ‘Reflective decision-making’; 2) ‘Pragmatic decision-making’; and 3) ‘Reactive decision-making’. Whilst pragmatic decision-making was found to disrupt care, reactive-decision-making was perceived to devalue the care offered and provided. Alternatively, reflective decision-making, despite the difficult working conditions of the pandemic, was seen to benefit services, with regards to care of high-quality, sustainability of staff, and innovation within the service. Conclusions Decision-making within maternity care was found to take three forms – where at best changes to services could be innovative, at worst they could cause devaluation in care being delivered, and more often than not, these changes were disruptive. With regard to positive changes, healthcare providers identified staff empowerment, flexible working patterns (both for themselves and collectively as teams), personalised care delivery, and change-making in general, as key areas to capitalise on current and ongoing innovations borne out of the pandemic. Key learnings included a focus on care-related, meaningful listening and engagement of staff at all levels, in order to drive forward high-quality care and avoid care disruption and devaluation.

COVID-19 has led to seismic changes in neurological practice in a matter of weeks. The Association of British Neurologists has supported neurology specialists and patients during this rapid reorganisation and its attendant challenges. We have written guidance on structured service transformation, considering the need to sustain long term care while responding to acute developments; we have recognised that staff experience differs and that this, as well as individual risk factors should be considered when redeployment occurs. Appreciating that there may be understandable anxiety when facing a working routine outside normal practice, we have signposted ethical and psychological support for individuals. We have also focused on our patients: we have facilitated a national alert system to register all neurological COVID cases, coordinating research efforts on this new disease; finally we have defined how to identify the most vulnerable patients under our care. When this initial wave of the pandemic subsides, we will have planned for return to the new ‘norm’, ready to embrace innovation where appropriate, aiming to minimise fall-out in our chronic disease population, and potentially having enhanced and modernised our services.

Perry and colleagues’ study of a programme to reconfigure cancer surgery provision in Greater Manchester highlights the importance of accounting for history in making successful change. In this short commentary, I expand on some of Perry and colleagues’ key findings. I note the way in which those leading change in Greater Manchester combined formal expertise in change management with sensitivity to local context, enhancing their approach to change through attention to details around relationships, events and assumptions that might otherwise have derailed the process. I identify lessons for others in how best to account for history in leading change, highlighting in particular the need to attempt to access and understand forms of history that may be suppressed, difficult-to-articulate, or otherwise marginalised.

Background The Covid-19 crisis sparked service reconfigurations in healthcare systems worldwide. With postgraduate medical education sitting within these systems, service reconfigurations substantially impact trainees and their training environment. This study aims to provide an in-depth qualitative understanding of the impact of service reconfiguration on doctors’ training during the pandemic, identifying opportunities for the future as well as factors that pose risks to education and training and how these might be mitigated. Methods Qualitative parallel multi-centre case studies examined three Trusts/Health Boards in two countries in the United Kingdom. Data were collected from online focus groups and interviews with trainees and supervisors using semi-structured interview guides (September to December 2020). A socio-cultural model of workplace learning, the expansive-restrictive continuum, informed data gathering, analysis of focus groups and coding. Results Sixty-six doctors participated, representing 25 specialties/subspecialties. Thirty-four participants were male, 26 were supervisors, 17 were specialty trainees and 23 were foundation doctors. Four themes described the impact of pandemic-related service reconfigurations on training: (1) Development of skills and job design, (2) Supervision and assessments, (3) Teamwork and communication, and (4) Workload and wellbeing. Service changes were found to both facilitate and hinder education and training, varying across sites, specialties, and trainees’ grades. Trainees’ jobs were redesigned extensively, and many trainees were redeployed to specialties requiring extra workforce during the pandemic. Conclusions The rapid and unplanned service reconfigurations during the pandemic caused unique challenges and opportunities to doctors’ training. This impaired trainees’ development in their specialty of interest, but also presented new opportunities such as cross-boundary working and networking.