Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Generalist models of care appeared a more natural fit for smaller organisations, but there was no evidence that any of the models identified produced better outcomes for patients.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Louella Vaughan 1,*, Martin Bardsley 2, Derek Bell 3, Miranda Davies 1, Andrew Goddard 4, Candace Imison 1, Mariya Melnychuk 5, Stephen Morris 5, Anne Marie Rafferty 6

1 Nuffield Trust, London, UK
2 The Health Foundation, London, UK
3 Imperial College London, London, UK
4 Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
5 University College London, London, UK
6 Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email: Louella.vaughan@nuffieldtrust.org.uk

Declared competing interests of authors: Stephen Morris reports membership of the following National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) committees: Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Funding Board (2014–19), HSDR Commissioning Board (2014–16), HSDR Synthesis Sub-board (2016–present); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Evaluation and Trials Board (Associate Member) (2007–10), HTA Commissioning Board (2009–13) and Public Health Research (PHR) Funding Board (2011–17). Martin Bardsley reports grants from NIHR outside the submitted work.

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document