Mahadkar, S; Mills, G and Price, A D F (2012) Stakeholder consultation practices within healthcare infrastructure planning: A conceptual approach to strategic asset management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 2(2), pp. 127-145. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
With the advent of the Darzi review in 2008, and more recently the White Paper “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” (2010), the NHS in England is being redesigned to provide high quality, personcentred services with improved capacity and performance. In this change oriented scenario, stakeholder consultation has a critical role to play given the widespread advocacy in government policy and healthcare literature. In order to support informed decision making, the purpose of this paper is to: explore healthcare infrastructure planning through various approaches to stakeholder consultation within English Primary Care Trusts (PCTs); and develop a conceptual approach to strategic asset management (SAM) based on the findings of stakeholder consultation and engagement exercises. A multimethod triangulation approach including action research has been adopted to evaluate current stakeholder consultation practices with a local PCT and to explore their approach to healthcare infrastructure planning through: a literature review of stakeholder engagement and theory; evaluation of a local consultation exercise; and a web based document review of consultation practices within 149 English PCTs. PCT estate managers and healthcare planners have to operate within constantly changing dynamic healthcare environments and need to reduce uncertainty and indecision that often surrounds the debate of reconfiguration of healthcare facilities and services. Consultations by the PCTs vary in: the level of detail provided to the public; sample sizes; detail and transparency of the consultation; distribution and analyses of the consultation; and techniques and approaches. The findings of this study can be used by healthcare policy makers to: inform how clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) could be better involved during patient and public engagement; and determine practical ways of putting patients at the heart of General Practitioners (GP) commissioning. The research identifies gaps within current stakeholder consultation practices in English PCTs and develops a conceptual approach to SAM that accounts for stakeholder consultation; decision making levels within healthcare infrastructure planning within a wider competency based organisational view, which currently does not exist.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business planning; consultation; estates; health care; planning; project management; stakeholder; strategic asset management; United Kingdom |
| Index terms: | England, action research, exercise, level of detail, public engagement, sample size, literature review, asset management, United Kingdom, government policy, infrastructure planning, decision-making, commissioning, planner, stakeholder engagement, practitioner, health care, reconfiguration, heart, project management, transparency, triangulation, estate manager |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, professional development, Geography, public and environmental health, medical science and clinical practice, completion, asset management, decision analysis, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, community and social dimensions, research design and methodology, organization, profession, data collection methods, strategic project management, data analysis and analytics, participation process, technical documentation, public policy |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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