Identifying where hospital and community trusts are managing general practices in England: a service mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Organisations providing secondary care in the NHS in England have historically not also provided primary health care, but this is changing. Data on where this kind of 'vertical integration' is happening are lacking, making it difficult to evaluate its impact. AIM: To compile a comprehensive list of instances of secondary care trusts running general practices in England, to enable evaluation of the impact of such arrangements. DESIGN & SETTING: This service mapping study comprises review, collation, synthesis, and analysis of published information describing secondary and primary care provision in the NHS in England in March 2021. METHOD: Desk-based collection, including hand-searching, of secondary care organisations' statutory annual reports. Triangulation via comparison with national data on general practices, the general practice workforce and practice contracts. RESULTS: It was possible to construct a database of all instances of trusts running general practices in England as of 31 March 2021. We have identified 26 trusts running a total of 85 general practices, operating across a total of 116 practice sites. These practices have on average fewer patients and fewer GP full-time equivalents than other general practices, and before becoming vertically integrated were performing less well in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. CONCLUSION: We recommend that national statistics recording the details of general practices contracting with the NHS should include whether each practice is owned by another organisation and whether that is an NHS trust, another public body, or a private organisation. Such data are required to enable evaluation of the impacts of this kind of vertical integration.

Vertical integration of general practices with acute hospitals in England: rapid impact evaluation.

Background: Vertical integration means merging organisations that operate at different stages along the patient pathway. We focus on acute hospitals running primary care medical practices. Evidence is scarce concerning the impact on use of health-care services and patient experience. Objectives: To assess the impact of vertical integration on use of hospital services, service delivery and patient experience and whether patients with multiple long-term conditions are affected differently from others. Design: Rapid, mixed methods evaluation with four work packages: (1) review of NHS trust annual reports and other sources to understand the scale of vertical integration across England; (2) development of the statistical analysis; (3) analysis of national survey data on patient experience, and national data on use of hospital services over the 2 years preceding and following vertical integration, comparing vertically integrated practices with a variety of control practices; and (4) focus groups and interviews with staff and patients across three case study sites to explore the impact of vertical integration on patient experience of care. Results: At 31 March 2021, 26 NHS trusts were in vertically integrated organisations, running 85 general practices across 116 practice sites. The earliest vertical integration between trusts and general practices was in 2015; a mean of 3.3 practices run by each trust (range 1-12). On average, integrated practices have fewer patients, are slightly more likely to be in the most deprived decile of areas, are more likely to hold an alternative provider medical services contract and have worse Quality and Outcomes Framework scores compared with non-integrated practices. Vertical integration is associated with statistically significant, modest reductions in rates of accident and emergency department attendances: 2% reduction (incidence rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99; p < 0.0001); outpatient attendances: 1% reduction (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.00; p = 0.0061), emergency inpatient admissions: 3% reduction (incidence rate ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.99; p = 0.0062) and emergency readmissions: 5% reduction (incidence rate ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.00; p = 0.039), with no impact on length of stay, overall inpatient admissions or inpatient admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. The falls in accident and emergency department and outpatient attendance rates are temporary. Focus groups and interviews with staff (N = 22) and interviews with patients (N = 14) showed that with vertical integration, health service improvements are introduced following a period of cultural interchange. Patients with multiple long-term conditions continue to encounter 'navigation work' choosing and accessing health-care provision, with diminishing continuity of care. Limitations: In the quantitative analysis, we could not replicate the counterfactual of what would have happened in those specific locations had practices not merged with trusts. There was imbalance across three case study sites with regard to staff and patients recruited for interview, and the latter were drawn from patient participation groups who may not be representative of local populations. Conclusions: Vertical integration can lead to modest reductions in use of hospital services and has minor or no impact on patient experience of care. Our analysis does not reveal a case for widespread roll-out of the approach. Future research: Further quantitative follow-up of the longer-term impact of vertical integration on hospital usage and more extensive interviewing of patients and their carers about patient experiences of navigating care. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Public engagement with genomics.

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.