Suppr超能文献

理解联合委员会的运作:预防、赋权和效率的三个话语。

Making sense of joint commissioning: three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency.

机构信息

Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S6. Epub 2013 May 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHOD

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

相似文献

2
Discourses of joint commissioning.联合委托的论述
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Jan;26(1):65-71. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12462. Epub 2017 Jun 12.
7
How managed a market? Modes of commissioning in England and Germany.如何管理市场?英国和德国的委托模式。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S8. Epub 2013 May 24.

本文引用的文献

2
Faces of integration.融合的面孔。
Int J Integr Care. 2009 Dec 22;9:e100. doi: 10.5334/ijic.509.
3
The Matrix Model of dual diagnosis service delivery.
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2009 Apr;16(3):305-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2008.01346.x.
4
Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working: the Sedgefield Integrated Team.
J Interprof Care. 2007 Feb;21(1):3-15. doi: 10.1080/13561820600991850.
6
Conceptualising successful partnerships.构建成功的伙伴关系。
Health Soc Care Community. 2004 Jul;12(4):309-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00500.x.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验