Familial Cancer

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 257–263 | Cite as

National evaluation of NHS genetics service investments: emerging issues from the cancer genetics pilots

Article

Abstract

In seeking to fulfil the ambition of the 2003 genetics white paper, Our Inheritance, Our Future, to ‘mainstream’ genetic knowledge and practices, the Department of Health provided start-up funding for pilot services in various clinical areas. These included seven cancer genetics projects, co-funded with Macmillan Cancer Support. To help to understand the challenges encountered by such an attempt at reconfiguring the organization and delivery of services in this field, a programme-level evaluation of the genetics projects was commissioned to consider the organizational issues faced. Using a qualitative approach, this research has involved comparative case-study work in 11 of the pilot sites, including four of the seven cancer genetics pilots. In this paper, the researchers present early findings from their work, focusing in particular on the cancer genetics pilots. They consider some of the factors that have influenced how the pilots have sought to address pre-existing sector, organizational and professional boundaries to these new ways of working. The article examines the relationship between these factors and the extent to which pilots have succeeded in setting up boundary-spanning services, dealing with human-resource issues and creating sustainable, ‘mainstreamed’ provision which attracts ongoing funding in a volatile National Health Service commissioning environment where funding priorities do not always favour preventive, risk-assessment services.

Keywords

Service delivery and organization Change management Cancer Genetics Human resources Commissioning NHS England 

References

  1. 1.
    Secretary of State for Health (2003) Our inheritance, our future: realising the potential of genetics in the NHS. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Secretary of State for Health (2000) The NHS plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glendinning C, Coleman A, Shipman C, Malbon J (2001) Primary care groups: progress in partnerships. BMJ 323:28–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Powell M, Dowling B (2006) New Labour’s partnerships: comparing conceptual models with existing forms. Soc Policy & Soc 5:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Currie G (2006) Managing knowledge across organizational and professional boundaries within public services. Public Money & Manage 26:83–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Currie G, Suhomlinova O (2006) The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: the triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy. Public Adm 84:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bate P (2000) Changing the culture of a hospital: from hierarchy to networked community. Public Adm 79:485–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferlie E, Hartley J, Martin S (2003) Changing public service organisations: current perspectives and future prospects. Br J Manage 14:S1–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14:532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yin R (1994) Case study research and methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McIntosh A, Shaw C, Evans G, Turnbull N, Bahar N, Barclay M, Easton D, Emery J, Gray J, Halpin J, Hopwood P, McKay J, Sheppard C, Sibbering M, Watson W, Wailoo A, Hutchinson A (2004; updated 2006) Clinical guidelines and evidence review for the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care/University of Sheffield. NICE guideline CG014. www.nice.org.ukGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Women’s Concerns Study Group (2001) Raising concerns about family history of breast cancer in primary care consultations: prospective, population based study. BMJ 322:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Welsh T, Pringle M (2001) Social capital. BMJ 323:177–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dopson S, FitzGerald L, Ferlie E, Gabbay J, Locock L (2002) No more magic targets! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based. Health Care Manage Rev 27(3):35–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Addicott R, McGivern G, Ferlie E (2007) The distortion of a managerial technique? The case of clinical networks in UK health care. Br J Manage 18:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham P. Martin
    • 1
  • Rachael Finn
    • 1
  • Graeme Currie
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Science and SocietyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Business SchoolUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations