Jonathan Hammond
University of Manchester
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jonathan Hammond.
Health Expectations | 2015
Jonathan Lamb; Christopher Dowrick; Heather Burroughs; Susan Beatty; Suzanne Edwards; Kate Bristow; Pam Clarke; Jonathan Hammond; Waquas Waheed; Mark Gabbay; Linda Gask
Despite the availability of effective evidence‐based treatments for depression and anxiety, many ‘harder‐to‐reach’ social and patient groups experience difficulties accessing treatment. We developed a complex intervention, the AMP (Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care) programme, which combined community engagement (CE), tailored (individual and group) psychosocial interventions and primary care involvement.
Public Management Review | 2018
Oz Gore; Jonathan Hammond; Simon Bailey; Katherine Checkland; Damian Hodgson
ABSTRACT A structural interpretation of institutionalism has become dominant in public management research. Yet, studies tend to assume an institutional-level phenomenon without specifying how an organizational field was identified or whether structural characteristics can indeed be found in the organizational population studied. This lacuna is illustrated by exploring the structural interpretation of the field construct in the case of the recent overhaul of English primary care. Findings demonstrate the need for a more robust application of institutionalism in empirical research. Possible research problems for public management and a future research agenda based on a more relational approach to fields are discussed.
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy | 2018
Jonathan Hammond; Anna Coleman; Katherine Checkland
Objectives The Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced Clinical Commissioning Groups to take responsibility for commissioning (i.e. planning and purchasing) the majority of services for local populations in the English NHS. Constituted as ‘membership organizations’, with membership compulsory for all GP practices, Clinical Commissioning Groups are overseen by, and are accountable to, a new arm’s-length body, NHS England. This paper critically engages with the content and policy narrative of the 2012 Act and explores this in relation to the reality of local policy enactment. Methods Set against a careful review of the 2012 Act, a case study of a nascent Clinical Commissioning Groups was conducted. The research included observations of Clinical Commissioning Group meetings and events (87 h), and in-depth interviews (16) with clinical commissioners, GPs, and managers. Results The 2012 Act was presented as part of a broader government agenda of decentralization and localism. Clinical Commissioning Group membership organizations were framed as a means of better meeting the needs and preferences of local patients and realizing a desirable increase in localism. The policy delineated the ‘governing body’ and ‘the membership’, with the former elected from/by the latter to oversee the organization. ‘The membership’ was duty bound to be ‘good’, engaged members and to represent their patients’ interests. Fieldwork with Notchcroft Clinical Commissioning Group revealed that Clinical Commissioning Groups’ statutory duty to NHS England to ‘ensure the continuous improvement’ of GP practice members involved performance scrutiny of GP practices. These governance processes were carried out by a varied cast of individuals, many of whom did not fit into the binary categorization of membership and governing body constructed in the policy. A concept, the governing assemblage, was developed to describe the dynamic cast of people involved in shaping the work and direction of the Clinical Commissioning Group, many of whom were unelected and of uncertain status. This was of particular significance in Notchcroft Clinical Commissioning Group because the organization explicitly pursued a governance system based on developing positions of consensus. The governing assemblage concept is valuable in articulating the actual practices of Clinical Commissioning Group governance, how these relate to the normative content of the 2012 Act, and the tensions that emerge. Conclusions The governing assemblage concept provided clarity in discussion of the dynamics of organizational governance in Notchcroft Clinical Commissioning Group, which did not follow the simple template articulated in the 2012 Act. The concept merits application in the study of other Clinical Commissioning Groups and may prove valuable in illuminating governance processes within a range of other health care organizations in different contexts. The governing assemblage holds promise for the analysis of ongoing changes to NHS organization, as well as international health care organizations such as accountable care organizations in the US.
BMC Public Health | 2018
Alex Hall; Jonathan Hammond; Donna Bramwell; Anna Coleman; Lynsey Warwick-Giles; Katherine Checkland
BackgroundPublic health has had a history characterised by uncertainty of purpose, locus of control, and workforce identity. In many health systems, the public health function is fragmented, isolated and under-resourced. We use the most recent major reforms to the English National Health Service and local government, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA12), as a lens through which to explore the changing nature of public health professionalism.MethodsThis paper is based upon a 3-year longitudinal study into the impacts of the HSCA12 upon the commissioning system in England, in which we conducted 141 interviews with 118 commissioners and senior staff from a variety of health service commissioner and provider organisations, local government, and the third sector. For the present paper, we developed a subset of data relevant to public health, and analysed it using a framework derived from the literature on public health professionalism, exploring themes identified from relevant policy documents and research.ResultsThe move of public health responsibilities into local government introduced an element of politicisation which challenged public health professional autonomy. There were mixed feelings about the status of public health as a specialist profession. The creation of a national public health organisation helped raise the profile of profession, but there were concerns about clarity of responsibilities, accountability, and upholding ‘pure’ public health professional values. There was confusion about the remit of other organisations in relation to public health.ConclusionsWhere public health professionals sit in a health system in absolute terms is less important than their ability to develop relationships, negotiate their roles, and provide expert public health influence across that system. A conflation between ‘population health’ and ‘public health’ fosters unrealistic expectations of the profession. Public health may be best placed to provide leadership for other stakeholders and professional groups working towards improving health outcomes of their defined populations, but there remains a need to clarify the role(s) that public health as a specialist profession has to play in helping to fulfil population health goals.
Archive | 2013
Christopher Dowrick; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Karina Lovell; Jonathan Lamb; Saadia Aseem; Susan Beatty; Peter Bower; Heather Burroughs; Pam Clarke; Suzanne Edwards; Mark Gabbay; Katja Gravenhorst; Jonathan Hammond; Derek Hibbert; Marija Kovandžić; Mari Lloyd-Williams; Waquas Waheed; Linda Gask
British Journal of General Practice | 2013
Jonathan Hammond; Katja Gravenhorst; Emma Funnell; Susan Beatty; Derek Hibbert; Jonathan Lamb; Heather Burroughs; Marija Kovandžić; Mark Gabbay; Christopher Dowrick; Linda Gask; Waquas Waheed; Carolyn Chew-Graham
Programme Grants for Applied Research. 2013;1(2). | 2013
Christopher Dowrick; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Karina Lovell; Jonathan Lamb; Saadia Aseem; Susan Beatty; Peter Bower; Heather Burroughs; Pam Clarke; Suzanne Edwards; Mark Gabbay; Katja Gravenhorst; Jonathan Hammond; Derek Hibbert; Marija Kovandžić; Mari Lloyd-Williams; Waquas Waheed; Linda Gask
Health & Place | 2012
Marija Kovandžić; Emma Funnell; Jonathan Hammond; Abdi Ahmed; Suzanne Edwards; Pam Clarke; Derek Hibbert; Katie Bristow; Christopher Dowrick
British Journal of General Practice | 2013
Jonathan Hammond; Katja Gravenhorst; Emma Funnell; Susan Beatty; Derek Hibbert; Jonathan Lamb; Heather Burroughs; Marija Kovandzic; Mark Gabbay; Christopher Dowrick; Linda Gask; Waquas Waheed; Carolyn Chew-Graham
Social Science & Medicine | 2017
Jonathan Hammond; Colin Lorne; Anna Coleman; Pauline Allen; Nicholas Mays; Rinita Dam; Thomas Mason; Katherine Checkland