NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Models of generalist and specialist care in smaller hospitals in England: a mixed-methods study

Models of generalist and specialist care in smaller hospitals in England: a mixed-methods study

Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 9.4

, , , , , , , , and .

Author Information
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; .

Headline

Generalist models of care appeared a more natural fit for smaller organisations, but there was no evidence that any of the models identified produced better outcomes for patients.

Abstract

Background:

The increasing number of older, complex patients who require emergency admission to hospital has prompted calls for better models of medical generalist care, especially for smaller hospitals, whose size constrains resources and staffing.

Objective:

To investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the current models of medical generalism used in smaller hospitals from patient, professional and service perspectives.

Methods:

The design was a mixed-methods study. Phase 1 was a scoping and mapping exercise to create a typology of models of care, which was then explored further through 11 case studies. Phase 2 created a classification using the Hospital Episode Statistics of acute medical ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ work and described differences in workload and explored the links between case mix, typology and length of stay and between case mix and skill mix. Phase 3 analysed the relationships between models of care and patient-level costs. Phase 4 examined the strengths and weaknesses of the models of care through focus groups, a discrete choice experiment and an exploration of the impact of typology on other outcomes.

Results:

In total, 50 models of care were explored through 48 interviews. A typology was constructed around generalist versus specialist patterns of consultant working. Twenty-five models were deployed by 48 hospitals, and no more than four hospitals used any one model of care. From the patient perspective, analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data of 1.9 million care episodes found that the differences in case mix between hospitals were relatively small, with 65–70% of episodes accounted for by 20 case types. The skill mix of hospital staff varied widely; there were no relationships with case mix. Patients exhibited a preference for specialist care in the discrete choice experiment but indicated in focus groups that overall hospital quality was more important. From a service perspective, qualitative work found that models of care were contingent on complex constellations of factors, including staffing, the local hospital environment and policy imperatives. Neither the model of care nor the case mix accounted for variability in the length of stay (no associations were significant at p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the costs of the models. Professionally, the preferences of doctors for specialist versus generalist work depended on their experiences of providing care and were associated with a healthy organisational culture and a co-operative approach to managing emergency work. Concepts of medical generalism were found to be complex and difficult to define, with theoretical models differing markedly from models in action.

Limitations:

Smaller hospitals in multisite trusts were excluded, potentially leading to sample bias. The rapidly changing nature of the models limited the analysis of typology against outcomes.

Conclusions:

The case mix of smaller hospitals was dominated by patients with presentations amenable to generalist approaches to care; however, there was no evidence to support any particular pattern of consultant working. Matching hospital staff to better meet local need and the creation of more collaborative working environments appear more likely to improve care in smaller hospitals than changing models.

Future work:

The exploration of the relationships between workforce, measures of hospital culture, models of care, costs and outcomes in both smaller and larger hospitals is urgently required to underpin service reforms.

Study registration:

This study is registered as Integrated Research Application System project ID 191393.

Funding:

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Contents

About the Series

Health Services and Delivery Research
ISSN (Print): 2050-4349
ISSN (Electronic): 2050-4357

Declared competing interests of authors: Stephen Morris reports membership of the following National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) committees: Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Funding Board (2014–19), HSDR Commissioning Board (2014–16), HSDR Synthesis Sub-board (2016–present); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Evaluation and Trials Board (Associate Member) (2007–10), HTA Commissioning Board (2009–13) and Public Health Research (PHR) Funding Board (2011–17). Martin Bardsley reports grants from NIHR outside the submitted work.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 14/195/02. The contractual start date was in January 2016. The final report began editorial review in January 2019 and was accepted for publication in October 2019. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Disclaimer

This report contains transcripts of interviews conducted in the course of the research and contains language that may offend some readers.

Last reviewed: January 2019; Accepted: October 2019.

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2021. This work was produced by Vaughan et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Bookshelf ID: NBK568036PMID: 33651526DOI: 10.3310/hsdr09040

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (7.8M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...