Oliver, M (2013) Evaluation of the planning and implementation of NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) in East London. PhD thesis, University of East London, UK.
Abstract
Procurement of NHS primary care buildings was reserved for the DH working through PCTs until LIFT was introduced. The DH anticipated that LIFT would effectively mobilise private sector finance and expertise in improving the quality of buildings. But LIFT’s suitability to achieve this is questioned on grounds that it uses market mechanisms that may fail when applied in health. This case-study explored with people directly involved in LIFT their views and experience of how it helped them in procuring desired buildings. It was driven by desire to understand whether and how contextual factors and mechanisms in LIFT supported staff efforts, hoping the findings would influence DH officials in revising the guidance to make LIFT effective. Evidence was primarily collected through in-depth interviews with 25 informants drawn at two PCTs, the LiftCo and LIFT buildings. Data from interviews was complemented by documentary analysis and tours to make observations at four LIFT buildings. The data was coded for analysis in NVivo. The key findings were organized into four analytical categories aligned with the research questions for interpretation to generate relevant answers. The study revealed that the important factors for progress in LIFT involved commitment of PCT boards; engaging PCT managers in strategic decisions and empowering them in influencing governance issues. Progress may be enhanced through DH officials encouraging increased collaboration between LIFT partners and promoting contractor competition in service delivery. Barriers to progress included the LiftCo over-prioritising efficiency, hiring of contractors lacking experience in health, and the DH not sufficiently supporting PCT managers in increasing their capacity to make LIFT effective. Informants believed LIFT could improve procurement provided ways of addressing the barriers were explored. LIFT outcomes are a result of factors in its contexts influenced by policy-makers and decisions taken by operational staff. Recommendations are offered for these constituents in LIFT and for future research. DH officials should get feedback on practicalities of LIFT guidance by engaging PCT managers in making strategic decisions and empowering them in translating their experiences into actions. This could make LIFT effective and reduce the risks that were highlighted.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | private sector; market; interview |
| Index terms: | implementation, market mechanisms, London, private sector, prioritizing, service delivery, governance, efficiency, documentary analysis, suitability, competition, evidence, collaboration, commitment, manager, interview |
| Subjects: | service delivery, performance management, management, design criteria, industry analysis, decision analysis, business, data collection methods, data science, Geography, market analysis, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, economic analysis, contractual arrangements, psychology |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Procurement, Risk Management, Quality Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Governance, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here