Strengths and risks of the Primary Health Network commissioning model.

Bates, S; Wright, M; Harris-Roxas, B

Strengths and risks of the Primary Health Network commissioning model.

Bates, S Wright, M

Harris-Roxas, B

Permalink

Publisher:: CSIRO Publishing
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Aust Health Rev, 2022, 46, (5), pp. 586-594
Issue Date:: 2022-10

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	AH21356.pdf	Published version	792.21 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bates, S
dc.contributor.author	Wright, M https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2708-4753
dc.contributor.author	Harris-Roxas, B
dc.date.accessioned	2023-06-13T20:42:14Z
dc.date.available	2022-02-04
dc.date.available	2023-06-13T20:42:14Z
dc.date.issued	2022-10
dc.identifier.citation	Aust Health Rev, 2022, 46, (5), pp. 586-594
dc.identifier.issn	0156-5788
dc.identifier.issn	1449-8944
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170735
dc.description.abstract	Objective To explain how the Primary Health Network commissioning model works, and factors likely to affect its success. Methods The study focuses on the delivery of primary healthcare services by one Primary Health Network (PHN) in Australia. The qualitative case study is informed by a desk top review, interviews (n = 49) and observations with key stakeholders involved in commissioning and delivering primary healthcare services in the region. Results The study provides several insights about the PHN model. First, conceptually, the PHN commissioning model is well suited to identifying and meeting local primary healthcare priorities, bringing together a range of stakeholders involved in healthcare provision. Second, although primary healthcare services are difficult to specify and measure, PHN staff use their content knowledge and experience, and relationships with providers and the community, to design services that meet the needs of consumers. Third, the success of this model may be undermined by short funding cycles and short lead-times, a focus on national rather than local priorities, and continual reductions in operational funding. This may result in more procedural forms of contract management, which may mean that changes in service need, provision and quality go unnoticed. Conclusions This study shows that although clever in design, the PHN model may not meet its full potential. Given continual changes to the model, including funding, further independent research should be undertaken to understand how PHNs adjust and whether services continue to meet the needs of the local community.
dc.format	Print
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	CSIRO Publishing
dc.relation.ispartof	Aust Health Rev
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1071/AH21356
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1110 Nursing, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1605 Policy and Administration
dc.subject.classification	Public Health
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Delivery of Health Care
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Qualitative Research
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Qualitative Research
dc.subject.mesh	Delivery of Health Care
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Delivery of Health Care
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Qualitative Research
dc.title	Strengths and risks of the Primary Health Network commissioning model.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	46
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	1110 Nursing
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1605 Policy and Administration
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-06-13T20:42:13Z
pubs.issue	5
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	46
utslib.citation.issue	5

Abstract:

Objective To explain how the Primary Health Network commissioning model works, and factors likely to affect its success. Methods The study focuses on the delivery of primary healthcare services by one Primary Health Network (PHN) in Australia. The qualitative case study is informed by a desk top review, interviews (n = 49) and observations with key stakeholders involved in commissioning and delivering primary healthcare services in the region. Results The study provides several insights about the PHN model. First, conceptually, the PHN commissioning model is well suited to identifying and meeting local primary healthcare priorities, bringing together a range of stakeholders involved in healthcare provision. Second, although primary healthcare services are difficult to specify and measure, PHN staff use their content knowledge and experience, and relationships with providers and the community, to design services that meet the needs of consumers. Third, the success of this model may be undermined by short funding cycles and short lead-times, a focus on national rather than local priorities, and continual reductions in operational funding. This may result in more procedural forms of contract management, which may mean that changes in service need, provision and quality go unnoticed. Conclusions This study shows that although clever in design, the PHN model may not meet its full potential. Given continual changes to the model, including funding, further independent research should be undertaken to understand how PHNs adjust and whether services continue to meet the needs of the local community.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170735