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

H. Dickinson, J. Glasby, Alyson Nicholds, helen sullivan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages11
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume13
Issue numberS6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Joints
Power (Psychology)
Delivery of Health Care

Cite this

Making sense of joint commisioning : three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency. / Dickinson, H.; Glasby, J.; Nicholds, Alyson; sullivan, helen.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 13, No. S6, 2013, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dickinson, H. ; Glasby, J. ; Nicholds, Alyson ; sullivan, helen. / Making sense of joint commisioning : three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2013 ; Vol. 13, No. S6. pp. 1-10.
@article{1bf4e42f49c7409a9fa46d1132e5ef34,
title = "Making sense of joint commisioning: three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency",
abstract = "BackgroundIn 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.MethodThe 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionsThere 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.",
author = "H. Dickinson and J. Glasby and Alyson Nicholds and helen sullivan",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S6",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "S6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Making sense of joint commisioning

T2 - three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency

AU - Dickinson, H.

AU - Glasby, J.

AU - Nicholds, Alyson

AU - sullivan, helen

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - BackgroundIn 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.MethodThe 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

AB - BackgroundIn 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.MethodThe 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S6

DO - 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S6

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - S6

ER -