Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Public Health. 2005 Nov;119(11):974-80. Epub 2005 Sep 26.

Moving upstream or muddying the waters? Incentives for managing for health.

Author information

  • 1Wolfson Research Institute, School for Health, Durham University Queen's Campus, Thornaby, Stockton on Tees TS17 6BH, UK. linda.marks@durham.ac.uk

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this study was to identify factors influencing the capacity of NHS managers to 'manage for health'.

STUDY DESIGN:

Semi-structured interviews (32) were carried out over the telephone or face to face with national stakeholders (15) and NHS senior managers (17) from four Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) and five Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England. Interviews were transcribed and a qualitative analysis carried out.

RESULTS:

The current system of targets and incentives prioritised access to acute services, public health skills were too thinly spread, baseline data were inadequate, decision-making for public health investment was fragmented and evidence for effective interventions was scanty. Health improvement targets should be plausible, longer term and locally owned, but key factors in creating a proactive public health organisation were a strong public health ethos, and effective management and leadership skills. Strengthening the NHS's role in managing for health was welcomed, but enthusiasm was tempered by concurrent NHS policy initiatives and incentives pulling in opposing directions.

CONCLUSIONS:

Key NHS policy initiatives have been developed in isolation from each other. While their combined effect remains unpredictable, they may serve to threaten the welcome shift towards managing for health improvement.

Comment in

PMID:
16185727
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk