Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S6. Epub 2013 May 24.
In recent years joint commissioning has assumed an important place in the policy and practice of English health and social care. Yet, despite much being claimed for this way of working there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the outcomes of joint commissioning. This paper examines the types of impacts that have been claimed for joint commissioning within the literature.
The paper reviews the extant literature concerning joint commissioning employing an interpretive schema to examine the different meanings afforded to this concept. The paper reviews over 100 documents that discuss joint commissioning, adopting an interpretive approach which sought to identify a series of discourses, each of which view the processes and outcomes of joint commissioning differently.
This paper finds that although much has been written about joint commissioning there is little evidence to link it to changes in outcomes. Much of the evidence base focuses on the processes of joint commissioning and few studies have systematically studied the outcomes of this way of working. Further, there does not appear to be one single definition of joint commissioning and it is used in a variety of different ways across health and social care. The paper identifies three dominant discourses of joint commissioning - prevention, empowerment and efficiency. Each of these offers a different way of seeing joint commissioning and suggests that it should achieve different aims.
There is a lack of clarity not only in terms of what joint commissioning has been demonstrated to achieve but even in terms of what it should achieve. Joint commissioning is far from a clear concept with a number of different potential meanings. Although this ambiguity can be helpful in some ways in the sense that it can bring together disparate groups, for example, if joint commissioning is to be delivered at a local level then more specificity may be required in terms of what they are being asked to deliver.
近年来,联合委托在英国卫生和社会保健的政策和实践中占据了重要地位。然而,尽管这种工作方式有很多优点,但缺乏证据证明联合委托的结果。本文考察了文献中声称的联合委托的各种影响。
本文回顾了有关联合委托的现有文献,采用解释性模式来考察这一概念的不同含义。本文回顾了 100 多篇讨论联合委托的文件,采用了一种解释性方法,试图确定一系列话语,每一种话语对联合委托的过程和结果都有不同的看法。
本文发现,尽管有很多关于联合委托的文献,但很少有证据将其与结果的变化联系起来。大部分证据基础都集中在联合委托的过程上,很少有研究系统地研究这种工作方式的结果。此外,联合委托似乎没有一个单一的定义,它在卫生和社会保健领域以各种不同的方式被使用。本文确定了联合委托的三个主导话语——预防、赋权和效率。每一种话语都提供了一种不同的看待联合委托的方式,并表明它应该实现不同的目标。
不仅在联合委托已经证明实现了什么方面存在不明确性,甚至在它应该实现什么方面也存在不明确性。联合委托远非一个明确的概念,它有许多不同的潜在含义。尽管这种模糊性在某些方面是有帮助的,例如,如果联合委托要在地方一级实施,那么可能需要更具体地说明他们被要求提供什么,但它也可能带来问题。