Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rivas, Carol; Abbott, Stephen; Taylor, Stephanie J. C.; Clarke, Aileen; Roberts, C. Michael; Stone, Robert; Griffiths, Chris (2010)
Publisher: Igitur, Utrecht Publishing & Archiving Services
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RC, RA
Introduction: We investigated the effects on collaborative work within the UK National Health Service (NHS) of an intervention for service quality improvement: informal, structured, reciprocated, multidisciplinary peer review with feedback and action plans. The setting was care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).\ud Theory and methods: We analysed semi-structured interviews with 43 hospital respiratory consultants, nurses and general managers at 24 intervention and 11 control sites, as part of a UK randomised controlled study, the National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP), using Scott’s conceptual framework for action (inter-organisational, intra-organisational, inter-professional and inter-individual). Three areas of care targeted by NCROP involved collaboration across primary and secondary care.\ud Results: Hospital respiratory department collaborations with commissioners and hospital managers varied. Analysis suggested that this is related to team responses to barriers. Clinicians in unsuccessful collaborations told ‘atrocity stories’ of organisational, structural and professional barriers to service improvement. The others removed barriers by working with government and commissioner agendas to ensure continued involvement in patients’ care. Multidisciplinary peer review facilitated collaboration between participants, enabling them to meet, reconcile differences and exchange ideas across boundaries.\ud Conclusions: The data come from the first randomised controlled trial of organisational peer review, adding to research into UK health service collaborative work, which has had a more restricted focus on inter-professional relations. NCROP peer review may only modestly improve collaboration but these data suggest it might be more effective than top-down exhortations to change when collaboration both across and within organisations is required.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Secretary of State for Health. The new NHS. London: Stationery Office; 1997.
    • 2. Scott D. Inter-organisational collaboration in family-centred practice: a framework for analysis and action. Australian Social Work 2005;58(2):132-41.
    • 3. Mackay L, Soothill K, Webb C. Troubled times: the context of interprofessional collaboration. In: Soothill K, Mackay L, Webb C, editors. Interprofessional relations in health care. London: Edward Arnold; 1995.
    • 4. Hudson B. Collaboration in Social Welfare: a framework for analysis. Policy and Politics 1987;15(3):175-82.
    • 5. Roberts CM, Buckingham RJ, Stone RA, Lowe D, Pearson MG. The UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP)-A feasibility study of large scale clinical service peer review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice [in press].
    • 6. Roberts CM, Stone RA, Buckingham RJ, Pursey NA, Harrison BDW, Lowe D, et al. A randomised trial of peer review: The UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project. Clinical Medicine 2010;10(3):223-7.
    • 7. Price LC, Lowe D, Hosker HSR, Anstey K, Pearson MG, Roberts CM, et al. UK National COPD Audit 2003: impact of hospital resources and organisation of care on patient outcome following admission for acute COPD exacerbation. Thorax 2006 Oct;61:837-42.
    • 8. Roberts CM, Lowe D, Barnes S, Pearson MG. A prospective study of the practical issues of local involvement in national audit of COPD. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2004;10(2):281-90.
    • 9. Royal College of Physicians and British Thoracic Society. Report of the 2003 National COPD Audit. In: Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit (ed). London: Royal College of Physicians; 2004.
    • 10. Page RL, Harrison BD. Interdepartmental peer review. British Medical Journal 1997;314(7083):765-6.
    • 11. Goacher B, Evans J, Walton J, Wedell K. Policy and provision for special educational needs: implementing the 1981 Education Act. London: Cassell; 1988.
    • 12. Smith WR. An explanation of theories that guide evidence-based interventions to improve quality. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2000;8(3):247-54.
    • 13. Smith J. Redesigning health care. British Medical Journal 2001;322(7297):1257-8.
    • 14. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3:77-101.
    • 15. Glaser BG, Strauss SA. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.
    • 16. Bromley DG, Shupe AD, Ventimiglia JC. Atrocity tales, the Unification Church and the social construction of evil. Journal of Communication 1979;29:42-53.
    • 17. D'Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M, Martin-Rodriguez LS, Beaulieu MD. The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2005;19(Suppl 1):116-31.
    • 18. Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday; 1959.
    • 19. Farmakopoulou N. What lies underneath? An inter-organizational analysis of collaboration between education and social work. British Journal of Social Work 2002;32(8):1051-66.
    • 20. Buchanan D, Boddy D. The expertise of the change agent: public performance and backstage activity. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall; 1992.
    • 21. Higgins DB. Merger and autonomy: reaping the benefits of both. Health Progress 1987 Jan-Feb;68(1):87-93.
    • 22. Gilbert DT, Malone PS. The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin 1995;117:21-38.
    • 23. Wilson T, Berwick DM, Cleary PM. What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety 2003;29(2):85-93.
    • 24. Pinnock H, Huby G, Tierney A, Hamilton S, Powell A, Kielmann T, et al. Is multidisciplinary teamwork the key? A qualitative study of the development of respiratory services in the UK. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2009;102(9):378-90.
    • 25. Willcocks S, Conway T. Strategic marketing and clinical management in health care: a possible way forward. Journal of Management in Medicine 1998;12(2):120-34.
    • 26. Mueller F, Sillince J, Harvey C, Howorth C. 'A rounded picture is what we need': rhetorical strategies, arguments, and the negotiation of change in a UK hospital trust. Organization Studies 2004;25(1):75-93.
    • 27. Kitchener M, Kirkpatrick I, Whipp R. Supervising professional work under new public management: evidence from an “invisible trade”. British Journal of Management 2000;11(3):213-26.
    • 28. Preston D, Loan-Clarke J. The NHS manager, a view from the bridge. Journal of Management in Medicine 2000; 14(2):100-8.
    • 29. Pettigrew A, Ferlie E, McKee L. Shaping strategic change-the case of the NHS in the 1980s. Public Money and Management 1992 Jul;12(3):27-31.
    • 30. Nembhard IM. Learning and improving in quality improvement collaboratives: which collaborative features do participants value most? Health Services Research 2009;44(2):359-78.
    • 31. Our health, our care, our say a new direction for community services; supporting people with long-term conditions: an NHS and social care model to support local innovation and integration. London: Department of Health; 2005.
    • 32. Edwards N, Fraser SW. Clinical networks: a discussion paper. London: NHS Confederation; 2001.
    • 33. Perkins N, Smith K, Hunter DJ, Bambra C, Joyce K. What counts is what works'? New Labour and partnerships in public health. Policy and Politics 2010;38(1):101-17.
    • 34. Klazinga N, Lombarts K, van Everdingen J. Quality management in the medical specialties: the use of channels and dikes in improving health care in The Netherlands. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 1998 May;24(5): 240-50.
    • 35. Li S. Doing criticism in 'symbiotic niceness': a study of palliative care nurses' talk. Social Science and Medicine 2005;60(9):1949-59.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article