Literature DB >> 27469052

A rapid review of the impact of commissioning on service use, quality, outcomes and value for money: implications for Australian policy.

Karen Gardner1, G Powell Davies1, Karen Edwards1, Julie McDonald1, Terry Findlay1, Rachael Kearns1, Chandni Joshi1, Mark Harris1.   

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to assess evidence of the impact of commissioning on health service use, quality, outcomes and value for money and to consider findings in the Australian context. Systematic searches of the literature identified 444 papers and, after exclusions, 36 were subject to full review. The commissioning cycle (planning, contracting, monitoring) formed a framework for analysis and impacts were assessed at individual, subpopulation and population levels. Little evidence of the effectiveness of commissioning at any level was available and observed impacts were highly context-dependent. There was insufficient evidence to identify a preferred model. Lack of skills and capacity were cited as major barriers to the implementation of commissioning. Successful commissioning requires a clear policy framework of national and regional priorities that define agreed targets for commissioning agencies. Engagement of consumers and providers, especially physicians, was considered to be critically important but is time consuming and has proven difficult to sustain. Adequate information on the cost, volume and quality of healthcare services is critically important for setting priorities, and for contracting and monitoring performance. Lack of information resulted in serious problems. High-quality nationally standardised performance measures and data requirements need to be built into contracts and ongoing monitoring and evaluation. In Australia, there is significant work to be done in areas of policy and governance, funding systems and incentives, patient enrolment or registration, information systems, individual and organisational capacity, community engagement and experience in commissioning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27469052     DOI: 10.1071/PY15148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust J Prim Health        ISSN: 1448-7527            Impact factor:   1.307


  2 in total

1.  A Systematic Review of Mental Health Professionals, Patients, and Carers' Perceived Barriers and Enablers to Supporting Smoking Cessation in Mental Health Settings.

Authors:  Lisa Huddlestone; Emily Shoesmith; Jodi Pervin; Fabiana Lorencatto; Jude Watson; Elena Ratschen
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 5.825

2.  in-DEPtH framework: evidence-informed, co-creation framework for the Design, Evaluation and Procurement of Health services.

Authors:  Kenneth Lo; Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-05       Impact factor: 2.692

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.