Managing demand for social care among adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Demand for formal social services support for adults with intellectual disabilities is increasing internationally. Initiatives which empower individuals with intellectual disabilities to improve their health, develop living skills or manage chronic illnesses may promote independence and reduce unnecessary dependency on social services. METHODS: A "preventative framework" to managing demand comprising several domains was developed from existing literature to guide the search strategy. RESULTS: Fourteen papers related to three domains in the predetermined preventative framework were selected for inclusion in the review, including twelve economic studies. Outcomes included measurement of care needs, and cost-comparison between social care models or cost-effectiveness of interventions. Due to the heterogeneity, the present authors were not able to quantitatively synthesize findings. CONCLUSIONS: The present authors conclude that evidence linking initiatives across sectors to demand for adult social care is lacking. The present authors identify several gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research and data recording in practice.

New horizons: Reablement - supporting older people towards independence.

As the overwhelming majority of older people prefer to remain in their own homes and communities, innovative service provision aims to promote independence of older people despite incremental age associated frailty. Reablement is one such service intervention that is rapidly being adopted across high-income countries and projected to result in significant cost-savings in public health expenditure by decreasing premature admission to acute care settings and long-term institutionalisation. It is an intensive, time-limited intervention provided in people's homes or in community settings, often multi-disciplinary in nature, focussing on supporting people to regain skills around daily activities. It is goal-orientated, holistic and person-centred irrespective of diagnosis, age and individual capacities. Reablement is an inclusive approach that seeks to work with all kinds of frail people but requires skilled professionals who are willing to adapt their practise, as well as receptive older people, families and care staff. Although reablement may just seem the right thing to do, studies on the outcomes of this knowledge-based practice are inconsistent-yet there is an emerging evidence and practice base that suggests that reablement improves performance in daily activities. This innovative service however may lead to hidden side effects such as social isolation and a paradoxical increase in hospital admissions. Some of the necessary evaluative research is already underway, the results of which will help fill some of the evidence gaps outlined here.

Models of reablement evaluation (MoRE): a study protocol of a quasi-experimental mixed methods evaluation of reablement services in England.

BACKGROUND: Reablement is a time-limited intervention that aims to support people to regain independence and enable them to resume their daily activities after they return home from an in-patient care setting, or to maintain independence to enable them to remain at home. There is some evidence that reablement can enhance independence and has the potential to contain costs. However, reablement services are funded and provided in different ways and by different organisations, and there is limited research evidence about the effectiveness of different reablement service models. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different reablement service models and service users' and carers' experiences of reablement in England, UK. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will use a quasi-experimental mixed methods design that comprises three work packages (WP) extending over a period of 34 months. WP1 will conduct cluster analysis on survey data to develop a typology of current models of reablement services in order to describe the current reablement service landscape. WP2 will comprise a quantitative outcomes evaluation of the effectiveness of the different service models; a process evaluation and an economic evaluation. WP2 will be set within generic reablement services, where providers are using the most commonly employed generic reablement service types identified in WP1; the primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L. WP3 will provide evidence about specialist reablement services and how specialist approaches and practices are organised and delivered. DISCUSSION: Managing demands on care services is, and will remain, a crucial factor for the UK National Health Service as the number of people with long-term conditions rise. There has been, and will continue to be, significant investment in reablement services. The proposed study will address several key areas where there is limited evidence regarding the organisation and delivery of reablement services in England, UK. Specifically, it will provide new evidence on different models of reablement services that will be of direct benefit to health and social care managers, commissioners and their partner organisations.

The Impact of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes on Health and Social Care Utilisation and Costs: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions such as smartphone applications (mHealth) or Internet resources (eHealth) are increasingly used to improve the management of chronic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus. These digital health interventions can augment or replace traditional health services and may be paid for using healthcare budgets. While the impact of digital health interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes on health outcomes has been reviewed extensively, less attention has been paid to their economic impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to critically review existing literature on the impact of digital health interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes on health and social care utilisation and costs. METHODS: Studies that assessed the impact on health and social care utilisation of digital health interventions for type 2 diabetes were included in the study. We restricted the digital health interventions to information provision, self-management and behaviour management. Four databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and EconLit) for articles published between January 2010 and March 2021. The studies were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. The risk of bias and reporting quality were appraised using the ROBINS-I checklist. RESULTS: The review included 22 studies. Overall, studies reported mixed evidence on the impact of digital health interventions on health and social care utilisation and costs, and suggested this impact differs according to the healthcare utilisation component. For example, digital health intervention use was associated with lower medication use and fewer outpatient appointments, whereas evidence on general practitioner visits and inpatient admissions was mixed. Most reviewed studies focus on a single component of healthcare utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: The review shows no clear evidence of an impact of digital health interventions on health and social care utilisation or costs. Further work is needed to assess the impact of digital health interventions across a broader range of care utilisation components and settings, including social and mental healthcare services. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO before searches began in April 2021 (registration number: CRD42020172621).

Implementation of the national Getting it Right First Time orthopaedic programme in England: a qualitative case study analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and impact of the Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) national orthopaedic improvement programme at the level of individual National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies conducted at six NHS Trusts, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of GIRFT. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 59 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle, including bespoke routine performance data and improvement recommendations for each organisation, delivered via 'deep-dive' visits to NHS Trusts by a senior orthopaedic clinician. RESULTS: Although all case study sites had made improvements to care, very few of these were reportedly a direct consequence of GIRFT. A range of factors, operating at three different levels, influenced their ability to implement GIRFT recommendations: at the level of the orthopaedic team (micro-eg, how individuals perceived the intervention); the wider Trust (meso-eg, competition for theatre/bed space) and the health economy more broadly (macro-eg, requirements to form local networks). Some sites used GIRFT evidence to support arguments for change which helped cement and formalise existing plans. However, where GIRFT measures were not a Trust priority because of more immediate demands-for example, financial and bed pressures-it was less likely to influence change. CONCLUSION: Dynamic relationships between the different contextual factors, within and between the three levels, can impact the effectiveness of a large-scale improvement intervention and may account for variations in implementation outcomes in different settings. When designing an intervention, those leading future improvement programmes should consider how it sits in relation to these three contextual levels and the interactions that may occur between them.

'Maze' not pathway: focus group exploration of patients' and public experiences of the UK NHS elective total joint arthroplasty pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and public perceptions of planned improvements to the National Health Service (NHS) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) pathway. DESIGN: Three qualitative focus groups undertaken March-May 2018, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of Getting It Right First Time. Transcripts were subject to framework analysis to identify thematic content between October 2018 and October 2021. SETTING: Elective TJA surgery in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Two focus groups including patients who had undergone TJA in the previous 2 years (group 1: n=5; group 2: n=4) and the other individuals who had not but were aged 60+ (group 3: n=5). Participants were recruited via community groups and patient panels. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals took part in the focus groups; all were aged over 60; seven (50%) were female and nine (64%) had undergone TJA surgery. Participants' perspectives were categorised into themes and mapped onto stages of the TJA pathway. Although perioperative care is often the focus of improvement efforts, participants argued that the patient journey begins before individuals present to primary care. Participants had concerns about other aspects of the pathway, such as obtaining a surgical referral, with prereferral interventions aimed at potentially avoiding the need for surgery (ie, physiotherapy) being perceived as a mechanism to restrict access to secondary care. Patient experience was also conceptualised as a 'maze', rather than the logical, sequential process set out in clinical guidelines; exacerbated by a lack of information, knowledge and power imbalances. CONCLUSION: The linear conceptualisation of the TJA pathway is at odds with patient experience. Improvement programmes focused on perioperative care fail to consider patient concerns and priorities. Patients should be directly involved in improvement programmes, to ensure that patient experience is optimised, as well as informing related processes and important outcomes of care.

Promoting continuity of care for people with long-term neurological conditions: the role of the neurology nurse specialist.

AIMS: To identify service models that provided care co-ordination for people with long-term neurological conditions in the U.K. BACKGROUND: The successful management of long-term neurological conditions needs sophisticated management across several health, social care and other service boundaries, as well as involvement of people with long-term neurological conditions and their support network. Yet, fragmentation of, and limited access to, support has been evident for over 20 years. DESIGN: This study employed a mixed-method approach, including a systematic review, qualitative case studies and a quantitative national survey. This paper reports findings from the qualitative case study element of the research. METHODS: In-depth (qualitative) case studies were conducted in six neurology 'service systems' in the U.K. representing geographic and demographic diversity. The research took place between November 2007-May 2008. The concept of 'continuity of care' was used as a framework for our case studies. Qualitative methods, including telephone and face-to-face interviews, were used to explore people's experience of continuity of care. Data were managed and analyzed using the Framework technique. FINDINGS: Neurology nurse specialists were able to contribute to all elements of continuity of care for people with long-term neurological conditions. CONCLUSION: Their specialist knowledge about the condition and local services, flexibility, co-ordinating role, and their holistic and collaborative approach to practice, are key factors in nurse specialists promoting continuity of care. Nurse specialists exist in many different clinical areas and in many countries. Findings about the importance of their role in promoting continuity of care have important implications for U.K. and international policy and practice.

A Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of a Local Population Health Management System to Reduce Inequities in COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake.

Population health management is an emerging technique to link and analyse patient data across several organisations in order to identify population needs and plan care. It is increasingly used in England and has become more important as health policy has sought to drive greater integration across health and care organisations. This protocol describes a mixed-methods process evaluation of an innovative population health management system in North Central London, England, serving a population of 1.5 million. It focuses on how staff have used a specific tool within North Central London's population health management system designed to reduce inequities in COVID-19 vaccination. The COVID-19 vaccination Dashboard was first deployed from December 2020 and enables staff in North London to view variations in the uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations by population characteristics in near real-time. The evaluation will combine interviews with clinical and non-clinical staff with staff usage analytics, including the volume and frequency of staff Dashboard views, to describe the tool's reach and identify possible mechanisms of impact. While seeking to provide timely insights to optimise the design of population health management tools in North Central London, it also seeks to provide longer term transferable learning on methods to evaluate population health management systems.

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme in elective orthopaedic surgery in England: an analysis from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the 'Getting it Right First Time' (GIRFT) national improvement programme in orthopaedics, which started in 2012. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising statistical analysis of linked national datasets (National Joint Registry; Hospital Episode Statistics; Patient-Reported Outcomes); economic analysis and qualitative case studies in six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 736 088 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement at 126 NHS Trusts between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2018, plus 50 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle including 'deep dive' visits by senior clinician to NHS Trusts, informed by bespoke set of routine performance data, to discuss how improvements could be made locally. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of procedures conducted by low volume surgeons; use of uncemented hip implants in patients >65; arthroscopy in year prior to knee replacement; hospital length of stay; emergency readmissions within 30 days; revision surgery within 1 year; health-related quality of life and functional status. RESULTS: National trends demonstrated substantial improvements beginning prior to GIRFT. Between 2012 and 2018, there were reductions in procedures by low volume surgeons (ORs (95% CI) hips 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63), knees 0.77 (0.72 to 0.83)); uncemented hip prostheses in >65 s (OR 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61)); knee arthroscopies before surgery (OR 0.48 (0.41 to 0.56)) and mean length of stay (hips -0.90 (-1.00 to -0.81), knees -0.74 days (-0.82 to -0.66)). The additional impact of visits was mixed and comprised an overall economic saving of £431 848 between 2012 and 2018, but this was offset by the costs of the visits. Staff reported that GIRFT's influence ranged from procurement changes to improved regional collaboration. CONCLUSION: Nationally, we found substantial improvements in care, but the specific contribution of GIRFT cannot be reliably estimated due to other concurrent initiatives. Our approach enabled additional analysis of the discrete impact of GIRFT visits.

Outcomes of reablement and their measurement: Findings from an evaluation of English reablement services.

Reablement - or restorative care - is a central feature of many western governments' approaches to supporting and enabling older people to stay in their own homes and minimise demand for social care. Existing evidence supports this approach although further research is required to strengthen the certainty of conclusions being drawn. In countries where reablement has been rolled out nationally, an additional research priority - to develop an evidence base on models of delivery - is emerging. This paper reports a prospective cohort study of individuals referred to three English social care reablement services, each representing a different model of service delivery. Outcomes included healthcare- and social care-related quality of life, functioning, mental health and resource use (service costs, informal carer time, out-of-pocket costs). In contrast with the majority of other studies, self-report measures were the predominant source of outcomes and resource use data. Furthermore, no previous evaluation has used a global measure of mental health. Outcomes data were collected on entry to the service, discharge and 6 months post discharge. A number of challenges were encountered during the study and insufficient individuals were recruited in two research sites to allow a comparison of service models. Findings from descriptive analyses of outcomes align with previous studies and positive changes were observed across all outcome domains. Improvements observed at discharge were, for most, retained at 6 months follow-up. Patterns of change in functional ability point to the importance of assessing functioning in terms of basic and extended activities of daily living. Findings from the economic evaluation highlight the importance of collecting data on informal carer time and also demonstrate the viability of collecting resource use data direct from service users. The study demonstrates challenges, and value, of including self-report outcome and resource use measures in evaluations of reablement.

The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale - Reablement Version (HRERS-RV): Development and psychometric properties.

Patient or user engagement with health and social care interventions is receiving increased attention and interest within practice settings and research. An English evaluation of three reablement services wished to include a measure of user-engagement so as to explore its association with outcomes. As no measure of reablement engagement existed, an existing measure designed for use with physical rehabilitation patients (the Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale) was adapted and its psychometric properties were tested. The adapted version was completed by reablement staff at the time an individual (n = 129) was discharged from one of the three reablement services. Outcomes data (Barthel Index, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale, General Health Questionnaire-12) collected by the evaluation study at baseline (that is, at entry into reablement), discharge and 6 months postdischarge was used for some psychometric testing. Internal consistency and construct, predictive and discriminant validity were investigated. The adapted scale measured a single construct and had good internal consistency. Tests of predictive and discriminant validity were positive. Findings from a separate, small-scale (n = 31) test-retest study offer an early indication that this is acceptable. There was, however, evidence of a ceiling effect and we consider ways this may be ameliorated. The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale - Reablement Version offers a means by which user engagement in reablement can be measured using a staff-completed instrument. The association between engagement and reablement outcomes, revealed when testing for predictive validity, supports the argument for greater attention and investment in research on user engagement in reablement. More broadly, researching engagement within the context of an intervention often delivered by multiple practitioners offers the opportunity to further understand this concept which, in the past, has particularly focused on interventions delivered by a single practitioner. In addition, future work should include developing a companion measure completed by service users.

Investigating the economic case of a service to support carers of people with dementia: A cross-sectional survey-based feasibility study in England.

Carers contribute essential support to enable people with dementia to continue living within the community. Admiral Nurses provide specialist dementia support for carers of people with dementia, including offering expert emotional support and guidance, and work to join up different parts of the health and social care system to address needs in a co-ordinated way. The cost-effectiveness of this service is not clear. We undertook a feasibility study to explore related outcomes and costs for these carers. A cross-sectional, clustered survey was undertaken in England in 2017, in areas with and without Admiral Nursing (AN). The survey questionnaire included questions on the characteristics of the carers and the person with dementia, outcomes (care-related quality of life [CRQoL], self-efficacy and subjective well-being), use of health and social care services, out-of-pocket costs and time spent on informal care. We used different econometric techniques to compare the outcomes and the costs of the carers with and without AN services: linear regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variables analysis. These techniques allowed us to control for differences in observed and unobserved characteristics between the two groups of carers which determined outcomes and costs. We concluded that AN services might have a positive effect on carers' CRQoL, self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Furthermore, we found little difference in costs between carers using AN and those using usual care, or in the costs of the people with dementia they care for. Our findings provided an initial indication as to whether AN services could be good value for money. The key limitation of the study was the difficulty in controlling for unobserved characteristics because of the cross-sectional nature of our observational data. To diminish this limitation, our survey could be used in future studies following carers with and without AN services over time.

What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life?: A modified nominal group study.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the most important issues for palliative care patients and their families, and assessing whether services address these appropriately is important. Little is known about the views of United Kingdom service users and whether, and in what ways, they differ from those in the published literature from other countries, or from health professionals. AIMS: To investigate what is important to measure at the end of life from the perspectives of United Kingdom patients, bereaved relatives and health care professionals. METHODS: Ten focus groups, using a modified nominal group technique, with a total of 75 participants (10 patients, 35 professionals and 30 bereaved relatives) enabled issues participants thought important to measure at the end of life to be identified and prioritised using ratings and rankings. Thematic analysis of the data was conducted to enable cross-group comparison. FINDINGS: Seven themes were identified as most important to participants: symptom management; choice and control; dignity; quality of life; preparation; relationships; and co-ordination and continuity. Bereaved relatives and professionals emphasised symptom management, relationships and quality of life, whilst patients prioritised issues around preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The study was successful in identifying aspects of end of life care that are important to patients, families and health professionals in the United Kingdom. Although participants were not representative of the wider population in the United Kingdom, the degree of concordance with published studies from outside the United Kingdom increases the credibility of the findings. Quality assurance initiatives need to ensure that they act on information such as this on users' priorities. Further research is needed to test out the findings in other settings in the United Kingdom, to build on the findings about different participants' views and to identify similarities and variations between countries.

A research study to identify facilitators and barriers to outcome measure implementation.

AIM: To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing outcome measures. METHODS: An action-research approach within a hospice and nursing home was used. Staff took part in semistructured interviews pre- and post-implementation of the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), completed diaries and participated in monthly meetings. FINDINGS: Qualitative content analysis identified barriers to implementation including: a top-down decision-making approach; outcome measures perceived as time-consuming to use; limited resources for data analysis; and a lack of knowledge of the importance of outcome measures. Facilitators to successful implementation include: involving all staff in decisions about implementation; and using a measure that can be adapted to organization needs and clinical practice. The benefits of using the measure are rapidly noticeable. CONCLUSIONS: Given the need to evaluate services and the role outcome measures can have within clinical governance, this article indicates methods by which measures may be more successfully implemented.

What outcomes are important to people with long-term neurological conditions using integrated health and social care?

Measuring the outcomes that are meaningful to people with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) using integrated health and social care services may help to assess the effectiveness of integration. Conventional outcomes tend not to be derived from service user experiences, nor are they able to demonstrate the impact of integrated working. This paper reports findings about outcomes identified as being important to people with LTNCs using integrated services. We undertook qualitative work with five community neuro-rehabilitation teams that were integrated in different ways and to different degrees. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 people with LTNCs using these teams. Data were collected between 2010 and 2011 and analysed using an adapted version of the Framework approach. We identified 20 outcomes across three domains: personal comfort outcomes, social and economic participation outcomes, and autonomy outcomes. Inter-relationships between outcomes, both within and across domains, were evident. The outcomes, and the inter-relationships between them, have implications for how individuals are assessed in practice.

It just didn't work: the realities of quality assessment in the English health care context.

AIMS: Assessment of care quality is integral to health and palliative care provision and there is a need to develop and implement outcome measures to assess quality. This study aimed to: (1) describe the implementation of a palliative care outcome measure in non-specialist palliative care settings and (2) to understand the implementation of the measure. METHOD: Twenty-five non-specialist palliative care settings were purposely sampled and invited to implement a palliative care outcome measure. Fifteen settings agreed to take part. The research team provided training and support in the use of the measure. Data were collected on actual use of the measure and, via interviews with patients and nurses, on their experiences. RESULTS: The number of assessments was low (21 patients assessed against an anticipated minimum of 240). The analysis of nurses' accounts identified important considerations in understanding the low response. Although nurses saw the implementation of the outcome measure as bringing opportunities for themselves, including their own professional development, and for the organisations they represent, including raising organisational profiles, there were a number of factors that acted as impediments. These include: perceived time to administer the paperwork; competence and confidence in recruiting patients and proceeding with informed consent; concerns about the effects of completing the measure with very ill patients; and the effects of nurses raising palliative care issues on their relationships with patients. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to integrate outcome measures into routine clinical practice. Future interventions should consider how to tailor the implementation of outcome measures within existing working structures and provide education and training to enable nurses to deal with potentially sensitive palliative care issues.

Professionals' views and experiences of using outcome measures in palliative care.

In palliative care, outcome measures are increasingly used to aid clinical practice, conduct audit and research. The objective of this study was to elicit professionals' views and experiences of using outcome measures, paying special attention to the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS). This article presents the results of a qualitative study of 26 professionals, experienced in using the POS, who were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews. Of those invited, 22 people took part. Participants' comments were noted verbatim through the interviews and data subjected to content analysis. Analysis of data identified a number of key themes surrounding outcome measures, notably their reasons for use, application in clinical settings and a range of professionals' attitudes. The article concludes that understanding the process of outcome measures is important for improving their implementation. When undertaking further research, attention should be paid to the wider social, cultural and structural contexts, as factors that can influence the implementation of outcome measures. As the drive towards outcome measures continues, it is essential that measures are not developed in a vacuum. Instead they should always be informed by the needs and experiences of individuals and services.

Assessing palliative care outcomes for people with motor neurone disease living at home.

A number of palliative care outcome measures are used to facilitate the provision of palliative care. This short article reports the use of one palliative care outcome measure, the Palliative care Outcome Scale, with people with motor neurone disease (MND) living at home. The outcome measure was generally viewed positively by those involved. However, problems with this scale itself point to the need for a specialized instrument to assess palliative care outcomes for people living with MND.

What is the potential for the use of clinical outcome measures to be computerised? Findings from a qualitative research study.

Clinical outcome measures are used in clinical audit to monitor the quality of care provided to patients. As information technology (IT) is increasingly being integrated into the delivery of health care, computerising the use of clinical outcome measures has been proposed. However, little is known about the attitudes of health professionals towards this. Aims to understand professionals' views on adapting one clinical outcome measure--the palliative care outcome scale (POS)--for use on hand-held computers. Concludes that these results reinforce existing research on clinical outcome measures and IT in health care; identify special palliative care issues when considering the use of computerised clinical outcome measures with patients; and highlight the need for further research.

Can general practitioner commissioning deliver equity and excellence? Evidence from two studies of service improvement in the English NHS.

OBJECTIVES: To explore some of the key assumptions underpinning the continued development of general practitioner-led commissioning in health services. METHODS: Qualitative data from two studies of service improvement in the English NHS were considered against England's plans for GP-led commissioning. These data were collected through in-depth interviews with a total of 187 professionals and 99 people affected by services in 10 different primary care trust areas across England between 2008 and 2009. RESULTS: Internationally, GPs are seen to have a central position in health systems. In keeping with this, the English policy places emphasis on the 'pivotal role' of general practitioners, considered to be ideally placed to commission in the best interests of their patients. However, our evidence suggests that general practitioners do not always have a pivotal role for all patients. Moreover, it is planned that the new commissioning groups in England will not be subject to top-down performance management and this raises the question of how agreed quality standards will be met under the proposed new system. CONCLUSIONS: This paper questions the assumption that GPs are best placed to commission health services in a way that meets quality standards and leads to equitable outcomes. There is little evidence to suggest that GPs will succeed where others have failed and a risk that, without top-down performance management, service improvement will be patchy, leading to greater, not reduced, inequity.