Cameron Ailsa, Brangan Emer, Gabbay John, Klein Jonathan H, Pope Catherine, Wye Lesley
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Jan;26(1):65-71. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12462. Epub 2017 Jun 12.
Increasing attention has focused on the role of joint commissioning in health and social care policy and practice in England. This paper provides an empirical examination of the three discourses of joint commissioning developed from an interpretative analysis of documents by Dickinson et al. (2013; BMC Health Services Research, 13) and applied to data from our study exploring the role of knowledge in commissioning in England. Based on interviews with 92 participants undertaken between 2011 and 2013, our analysis confirms that the three discourses of prevention or empowerment or efficiency are used by professionals from across health and social care organisations to frame their experiences of joint commissioning. However, contrary to Dickinson et al., we also demonstrate that commissioners and other stakeholders combine and trade off these different discourses in unexpected ways. Moreover, at sites where the service user experience was central to the commissioning process (joint commissioning as empowerment), a greater sense of agreement about commissioning decisions appeared to have been established even when the other discourses were also in play.
在英格兰,联合委托在卫生和社会护理政策及实践中的作用日益受到关注。本文对联合委托的三种话语进行了实证研究,这些话语源于迪金森等人(2013年;《BMC卫生服务研究》,第13期)对文件的解释性分析,并应用于我们研究的数据,该研究探讨了知识在英格兰委托过程中的作用。基于2011年至2013年期间对92名参与者的访谈,我们的分析证实,来自卫生和社会护理组织的专业人员使用预防、赋权或效率这三种话语来构建他们的联合委托经历。然而,与迪金森等人的研究相反,我们还表明,委托方和其他利益相关者以意想不到的方式将这些不同的话语结合起来并进行权衡。此外,在服务用户体验是委托过程核心的场所(联合委托即赋权),即使其他话语也在起作用,似乎对委托决策也达成了更大程度的共识。