Increasing autonomy in publically owned services
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore government efforts to enhance the autonomy of community health services (CHS) in England through the creation of Foundation Trusts status. It considers why some CHS elected to become nascent Community Foundation Trusts (CFTs) while others had not and...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of health organization and management 2015, Vol.29 (6), p.778-794 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 794 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 778 |
| container_title | Journal of health organization and management |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Cameron, Ailsa Allen, Pauline Williams, Lorraine Durand, Mary Alison Bartlett, Will Perotin, Virginie Hutchings, Andrew |
| description | Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore government efforts to enhance the autonomy of community health services (CHS) in England through the creation of Foundation Trusts status. It considers why some CHS elected to become nascent Community Foundation Trusts (CFTs) while others had not and what advantages they thought increased levels of autonomy offered.
Design/methodology/approach
– Data are drawn from the evaluation of the Department of Health’s CFT pilot programme. Participants were purposively selected from pilot sites, as well as from comparator non-pilot organisations. A total of 44 staff from 14 organisations were interviewed.
Findings
– The data reveals that regardless of the different pathways that organisations were on, they all shared the same goal, a desire for greater autonomy, but specifically within the NHS. Additionally, irrespective of their organisational form most organisations were considering an almost identical set of initiatives as a means to improve service delivery and productivity.
Research limitations/implications
– Despite the expectations of policy makers no CFTs were established during the course of the study, so it is not possible to find out what the effect of such changes were. Nevertheless, the authors were able to investigate the attitudes of all the providers of CHS to the plans to increase their managerial autonomy, whether simply by separating from PCTs or by becoming CFTs.
Originality/value
– As no CFTs have yet been formed, this study provides the only evidence to date about increasing autonomy for CHS in England. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0098 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_JHOM-06-2014-0098</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1716253264</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-e1688-6ebf12122d92c7361819b613875d88415ebc0d6cf80212cce9c8ab27b25555a83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpl0E1LAzEQBuAgiq3VH-BFFrx4iWYmu0n2KEVtpdKLnpckO5Ut-1E3XaX_3kgVQecy7-FhGF7GzkFcAwhz8zhbPnGhOApIuRC5OWBj0JnhGlN9GHOqdcxKjdhJCGshEFFnx2yESuYpZnrMxLz1PdlQta-JHbZd2zW7pGqTzeDqytu63iXdR0tlEqh_rzyFU3a0snWgs-89YS_3d8_TGV8sH-bT2wUnUMZwRW4FCIhljl5LBQZyp0AanZXGpJCR86JUfmVEVN5T7o11qB1mcayRE3a1v7vpu7eBwrZoquCprm1L3RAK0KAwk6jSSC__0HU39G38rkCQYHQaq4nq4lsNrqGy2PRVY_td8dNFBGIPqKHe1r8CRPFVd_GvbvkJAn9s2A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2131874098</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Increasing autonomy in publically owned services</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Emerald Journals</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Cameron, Ailsa ; Allen, Pauline ; Williams, Lorraine ; Durand, Mary Alison ; Bartlett, Will ; Perotin, Virginie ; Hutchings, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Ailsa ; Allen, Pauline ; Williams, Lorraine ; Durand, Mary Alison ; Bartlett, Will ; Perotin, Virginie ; Hutchings, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore government efforts to enhance the autonomy of community health services (CHS) in England through the creation of Foundation Trusts status. It considers why some CHS elected to become nascent Community Foundation Trusts (CFTs) while others had not and what advantages they thought increased levels of autonomy offered.
Design/methodology/approach
– Data are drawn from the evaluation of the Department of Health’s CFT pilot programme. Participants were purposively selected from pilot sites, as well as from comparator non-pilot organisations. A total of 44 staff from 14 organisations were interviewed.
Findings
– The data reveals that regardless of the different pathways that organisations were on, they all shared the same goal, a desire for greater autonomy, but specifically within the NHS. Additionally, irrespective of their organisational form most organisations were considering an almost identical set of initiatives as a means to improve service delivery and productivity.
Research limitations/implications
– Despite the expectations of policy makers no CFTs were established during the course of the study, so it is not possible to find out what the effect of such changes were. Nevertheless, the authors were able to investigate the attitudes of all the providers of CHS to the plans to increase their managerial autonomy, whether simply by separating from PCTs or by becoming CFTs.
Originality/value
– As no CFTs have yet been formed, this study provides the only evidence to date about increasing autonomy for CHS in England.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1477-7266</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-7247</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0098</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26394257</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Autonomy ; Community ; Community health care ; Community health services ; Community Health Services - economics ; Community Health Services - organization & administration ; Community Health Services - trends ; Cost Control - methods ; Cost Control - standards ; Decision making ; England ; Health & social care ; Health administration ; Health care policy ; Health services ; Healthcare management ; Horizontal integration ; Humans ; Mental health ; Organizational change ; Organizations ; Policy making ; Productivity ; Professional Autonomy ; Public sector ; Public services ; State Medicine - economics ; State Medicine - organization & administration ; State Medicine - trends ; Strategic management ; Trusts</subject><ispartof>Journal of health organization and management, 2015, Vol.29 (6), p.778-794</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0098/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0098/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,966,4014,11626,12837,21686,27335,27914,27915,27916,30990,33765,52677,52680,53235,53363</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26394257$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Ailsa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Lorraine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durand, Mary Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartlett, Will</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perotin, Virginie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hutchings, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>Increasing autonomy in publically owned services</title><title>Journal of health organization and management</title><addtitle>J Health Organ Manag</addtitle><description>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore government efforts to enhance the autonomy of community health services (CHS) in England through the creation of Foundation Trusts status. It considers why some CHS elected to become nascent Community Foundation Trusts (CFTs) while others had not and what advantages they thought increased levels of autonomy offered.
Design/methodology/approach
– Data are drawn from the evaluation of the Department of Health’s CFT pilot programme. Participants were purposively selected from pilot sites, as well as from comparator non-pilot organisations. A total of 44 staff from 14 organisations were interviewed.
Findings
– The data reveals that regardless of the different pathways that organisations were on, they all shared the same goal, a desire for greater autonomy, but specifically within the NHS. Additionally, irrespective of their organisational form most organisations were considering an almost identical set of initiatives as a means to improve service delivery and productivity.
Research limitations/implications
– Despite the expectations of policy makers no CFTs were established during the course of the study, so it is not possible to find out what the effect of such changes were. Nevertheless, the authors were able to investigate the attitudes of all the providers of CHS to the plans to increase their managerial autonomy, whether simply by separating from PCTs or by becoming CFTs.
Originality/value
– As no CFTs have yet been formed, this study provides the only evidence to date about increasing autonomy for CHS in England.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Autonomy</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>Community health care</subject><subject>Community health services</subject><subject>Community Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Community Health Services - organization & administration</subject><subject>Community Health Services - trends</subject><subject>Cost Control - methods</subject><subject>Cost Control - standards</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Health & social care</subject><subject>Health administration</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Healthcare management</subject><subject>Horizontal integration</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Organizational change</subject><subject>Organizations</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Professional Autonomy</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><subject>Public services</subject><subject>State Medicine - economics</subject><subject>State Medicine - organization & administration</subject><subject>State Medicine - trends</subject><subject>Strategic management</subject><subject>Trusts</subject><issn>1477-7266</issn><issn>1758-7247</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpl0E1LAzEQBuAgiq3VH-BFFrx4iWYmu0n2KEVtpdKLnpckO5Ut-1E3XaX_3kgVQecy7-FhGF7GzkFcAwhz8zhbPnGhOApIuRC5OWBj0JnhGlN9GHOqdcxKjdhJCGshEFFnx2yESuYpZnrMxLz1PdlQta-JHbZd2zW7pGqTzeDqytu63iXdR0tlEqh_rzyFU3a0snWgs-89YS_3d8_TGV8sH-bT2wUnUMZwRW4FCIhljl5LBQZyp0AanZXGpJCR86JUfmVEVN5T7o11qB1mcayRE3a1v7vpu7eBwrZoquCprm1L3RAK0KAwk6jSSC__0HU39G38rkCQYHQaq4nq4lsNrqGy2PRVY_td8dNFBGIPqKHe1r8CRPFVd_GvbvkJAn9s2A</recordid><startdate>2015</startdate><enddate>2015</enddate><creator>Cameron, Ailsa</creator><creator>Allen, Pauline</creator><creator>Williams, Lorraine</creator><creator>Durand, Mary Alison</creator><creator>Bartlett, Will</creator><creator>Perotin, Virginie</creator><creator>Hutchings, Andrew</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2015</creationdate><title>Increasing autonomy in publically owned services</title><author>Cameron, Ailsa ; Allen, Pauline ; Williams, Lorraine ; Durand, Mary Alison ; Bartlett, Will ; Perotin, Virginie ; Hutchings, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e1688-6ebf12122d92c7361819b613875d88415ebc0d6cf80212cce9c8ab27b25555a83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Autonomy</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>Community health care</topic><topic>Community health services</topic><topic>Community Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Community Health Services - organization & administration</topic><topic>Community Health Services - trends</topic><topic>Cost Control - methods</topic><topic>Cost Control - standards</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Health & social care</topic><topic>Health administration</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Healthcare management</topic><topic>Horizontal integration</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Organizational change</topic><topic>Organizations</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Professional Autonomy</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><topic>Public services</topic><topic>State Medicine - economics</topic><topic>State Medicine - organization & administration</topic><topic>State Medicine - trends</topic><topic>Strategic management</topic><topic>Trusts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Ailsa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Lorraine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durand, Mary Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartlett, Will</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perotin, Virginie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hutchings, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of health organization and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cameron, Ailsa</au><au>Allen, Pauline</au><au>Williams, Lorraine</au><au>Durand, Mary Alison</au><au>Bartlett, Will</au><au>Perotin, Virginie</au><au>Hutchings, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Increasing autonomy in publically owned services</atitle><jtitle>Journal of health organization and management</jtitle><addtitle>J Health Organ Manag</addtitle><date>2015</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>778</spage><epage>794</epage><pages>778-794</pages><issn>1477-7266</issn><eissn>1758-7247</eissn><abstract>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore government efforts to enhance the autonomy of community health services (CHS) in England through the creation of Foundation Trusts status. It considers why some CHS elected to become nascent Community Foundation Trusts (CFTs) while others had not and what advantages they thought increased levels of autonomy offered.
Design/methodology/approach
– Data are drawn from the evaluation of the Department of Health’s CFT pilot programme. Participants were purposively selected from pilot sites, as well as from comparator non-pilot organisations. A total of 44 staff from 14 organisations were interviewed.
Findings
– The data reveals that regardless of the different pathways that organisations were on, they all shared the same goal, a desire for greater autonomy, but specifically within the NHS. Additionally, irrespective of their organisational form most organisations were considering an almost identical set of initiatives as a means to improve service delivery and productivity.
Research limitations/implications
– Despite the expectations of policy makers no CFTs were established during the course of the study, so it is not possible to find out what the effect of such changes were. Nevertheless, the authors were able to investigate the attitudes of all the providers of CHS to the plans to increase their managerial autonomy, whether simply by separating from PCTs or by becoming CFTs.
Originality/value
– As no CFTs have yet been formed, this study provides the only evidence to date about increasing autonomy for CHS in England.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><pmid>26394257</pmid><doi>10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0098</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1477-7266 |
| ispartof | Journal of health organization and management, 2015, Vol.29 (6), p.778-794 |
| issn | 1477-7266 1758-7247 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_JHOM-06-2014-0098 |
| source | MEDLINE; Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Emerald Journals; Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection |
| subjects | Accountability Autonomy Community Community health care Community health services Community Health Services - economics Community Health Services - organization & administration Community Health Services - trends Cost Control - methods Cost Control - standards Decision making England Health & social care Health administration Health care policy Health services Healthcare management Horizontal integration Humans Mental health Organizational change Organizations Policy making Productivity Professional Autonomy Public sector Public services State Medicine - economics State Medicine - organization & administration State Medicine - trends Strategic management Trusts |
| title | Increasing autonomy in publically owned services |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T06%3A28%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Increasing%20autonomy%20in%20publically%20owned%20services&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20health%20organization%20and%20management&rft.au=Cameron,%20Ailsa&rft.date=2015&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=778&rft.epage=794&rft.pages=778-794&rft.issn=1477-7266&rft.eissn=1758-7247&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0098&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E1716253264%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2131874098&rft_id=info:pmid/26394257&rfr_iscdi=true |