Search

Purpose: Several studies have been carried out on defensive medicine, but research from the managerial viewpoint is still scarce. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to conduct a literature review to better understand defensive medicine from a managerial perspective. Design/methodology/approach: A literature review was conducted of studies focusing on the organisational (meso) level of healthcare providers and managerial practices. A final sample of 28 studies was processed. Findings: Defensive medicine has mainly been studied in the USA, and scholars have principally used quantitative surveys. High-risk specialities have been a critical field of investigation, and a large portion of the papers are published in journals that cover medicine, health policy, education and law fields. The analysis showed that operations and the organisation of staffing were the most discussed managerial practices. No study considered planning and budgeting aspects. Originality/value: The review confirmed that the managerial aspect of defensive medicine has not been fully addressed. Stimulated by this gap, this study analyses the managerial background of the defensive medicine phenomenon and shows which managerial practices have been most analysed. This paper also contributes to developing the literature on defensive medicine from the managerial side. Areas for future research include qualitative studies to investigate the behaviour of managers of healthcare companies to give a different perspective on defensive medicine and organisations' decision-making. Research limitations/implications: Some important publications might have been missed in this work because of the choice of only two databases. A further limit could be imposed by the use of the English language as an inclusion criterion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between.Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively.Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Client-centred care serves as the foundation for healthcare policy. Indeed, various instruments for assessing clients' experiences of care and support are increasingly used to provide insights into the quality, and client-centred nature, of the care and support provided, which, in turn, aids the development of subsequent improvements. The unique characteristics of care and support for people with intellectual disabilities (ID), such as the need for both lifelong and life-wide care and support across all aspects of clients' lives, led to an initiative within Dutch ID care to jointly develop a range of instruments to assess the experiences of clients receiving ID care and support. Individual clients' experiences and suggestions for improvement, which are embedded in clients' care plan cycles, constitute the foundation of this Range of Instruments. This paper provides a unique, bottom-up, exhaustive account of the process of developing the Range of instruments used to assess the experiences of clients in the field of Dutch ID care.Methods: Relevant documents at three levels (i.e. 1) national documents, such as policy papers and governmental reports, 2) documents and reports from the Dutch Association of Healthcare Providers for People with Disabilities (VGN) along with minutes from the meetings of the expert Committee who assessed the instruments, and 3) correspondence between the Committee and developers as well as the forms used in the assessment process for each instrument) were qualitatively analysed by two researchers who had no affiliation with the development of the Range of instruments used to assess clients' experiences in ID care and support. All of the documents were inductively coded using a thematic analytical approach. Informants who were either currently or previously involved in the development of these instruments were asked to provide clarification over the documents themselves and to explain the context in which they were produced.Results: The development of the range of instruments can be classified into four phases, namely: 1) supporting the bottom-up development of initiatives to assess clients' experiences, 2) focusing on learning and further development, 3) stimulating exchange between the developers and users of the instruments and the Committee responsible for assessing them, and 4) further development in response to the changing times and new landscape.Conclusions: The range of instruments were found to be appropriate for a variety of clients in ID care and support, specifically in terms of assessing their individual experiences and gaining insight into their suggestions for improvement, and effective in terms of collaboratively improving the quality of ID care and support. In so doing, these instruments potentially provide an avenue through which clients' experiences can be embedded in the process of ID care and support. Other specific features in the development of these instruments, namely their incremental adoption, ongoing evaluation and strong practice orientation, were also found to be suitable for other care contexts' attempts to respond to the top-down policy objectives of client-centeredness and translating outcomes into direct care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the 1980s, markets have turned increasingly to intangible goods - healthcare, education, the arts, and justice. Over 40 years, the authors investigated healthcare commoditisation to produce policy knowledge relevant to patients, physicians, health professionals, and taxpayers. This paper revisits their objectives, methods, and results to enlighten healthcare policy design and research.Main Text: This paper meta-analyses the authors' research that evaluated the markets impact on healthcare and professional culture and investigated how they influenced patients' timely access to quality care and physicians' working conditions. Based on these findings, they explored the political economic of healthcare. In low-income countries the analysed research showed that, through loans and cooperation, multilateral agencies restricted the function of public services to disease control, with subsequent catastrophic reductions in access to care, health de-medicalisation, increased avoidable mortality, and failure to attain the narrow MDGs in Africa. The pro-market reforms enacted in middle-income countries entailed the purchaser-provider split, privatisation of healthcare pre-financing, and government contracting of health finance management to private insurance companies. To establish the materiality of a cause-and-effect relationship, the authors compared the efficiency of Latin American national health systems according to whether or not they were pro-market and complied with international policy standards. While pro-market health economists acknowledge that no market can offer equitable access to healthcare without effective regulation and control, the authors showed that both regulation and control were severely constrained in Asia by governance and medical secrecy issues. In high-income countries they questioned the interest for population health of healthcare insurance companies, whilst comparing access to care and health expenditures in the European Union vs. the U.S., the Netherlands, and Switzerland. They demonstrated that commoditising healthcare increases mortality and suffering amenable to care considerably and carries professional, cultural, and ethical risks for doctors and health professionals. Pro-market policies systems cause health systems inefficiency, inequity in access to care and strain professionals' ethics.Conclusion: Policy research methodologies benefit from being inductive, as health services and systems evaluations, and population health studies are prerequisites to challenge official discourse and to explore the historical, economic, sociocultural, and political determinants of public policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethical medical practice requires managing health services to promote professionalism and secure accessibility to care. Commercially financed and industrially managed services strain the physicians' clinical autonomy and ethics because the industry's profitability depends on commercial, clinical standardisation. Private insurance companies also reduce access to care whilst fragmenting and segmenting health systems. Against this background, given the powerful, symbolic significance of their common voice, physicians' and patients' organisations could effectively leverage together political parties and employers' organisations to promote policies favouring access to professional care.Main Text: To provide a foundation for negotiations between physicians' and patients' organisations, we propose policy principles derived from an analysis of rights-holders and duty-bearers' stakes, i.e., patients, physicians and health professionals, and taxpayers. Their concerns are scrutinised from the standpoints of public health and right to health. Illustrated with post-WWII European policies, these principles are formulated as inputs for tentative action-research. The paper also identifies potential stumbling blocks for collective doctor/patient negotiations based on the authors' personal experience. The patients' concerns are care accessibility, quality, and price. Those of physicians and other professionals are problem-solving capacity, autonomy, intellectual progress, ethics, work environment, and revenue. The majority of taxpayers have an interest in taxes being progressive and public spending on health regressive. Mutual aid associations tend to under-estimate the physician's role in delivering care. Physicians' organisations often disregard the mission of financing care and its impact on healthcare quality.Conclusion: The proposed physicians-patients' alliance could promote policies in tune with professional ethics, prevent European policies' putting industrial concerns above suffering and death, bar care financing from the ambit of international trade treaties, and foster international cooperation policies consistent with the principles that inspire the design of healthcare policies at home and so reduce international migration. To be credible partners in this alliance, physicians' associations should promote a public health culture amongst their members and a team culture in healthcare services. To promote a universal health system, patients' organisations should strive to represent universal health interests rather than those of patients with specific diseases, ethnic groups, or social classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Strong relations between medicine and public health have long been advocated. Today, professional medical practice assumes joint clinical/public health objectives: GPs are expected to practice community medicine; Hospital specialists can be involved in disease control and health service organisation; Doctors can teach, coach, evaluate, and coordinate care; Clinicians should interpret protocols with reference to clinical epidemiology. Public health physicians should tailor preventive medicine to individual health risks. This paper is targeted at those practitioners and academics responsible for their teams' professionalism and the accessibility of care, where the authors argue in favour of the epistemological integration of clinical medicine and public health.Main Text: Based on empirical evidence the authors revisit the epistemological border of clinical and public health knowledge to support joint practice. From action-research and cognitive psychology, we derive clinical/public health knowledge categories that require different transmission and discovery techniques. The knowledge needed to support the universal human right to access professional care bridges both clinical and public health concepts, and summons professional ethics to validate medical decisions. To provide a rational framework for teaching and research, we propose the following categories: 'Know-how/practice techniques', corresponding a.o. to behavioural, communication, and manual skills; 'Procedural knowledge' to choose and apply procedures that meet explicit quality criteria; 'Practical knowledge' to design new procedures and inform the design of established procedures in new contexts; and Theoretical knowledge teaches the reasoning and theory of knowledge and the laws of existence and functioning of reality to validate clinical and public health procedures. Even though medical interventions benefit from science, they are, in essence, professional: science cannot standardise eco-biopsychosocial decisions; doctor-patient negotiations; emotional intelligence; manual and behavioural skills; and resolution of ethical conflicts.Conclusion: Because the quality of care utilises the professionals' skill-base but is also affected by their intangible motivations, health systems should individually tailor continuing medical education and treat collective knowledge management as a priority. Teamwork and coaching by those with more experience provide such opportunities. In the future, physicians and health professionals could jointly develop clinical/public health integrated knowledge. To this end, governments should make provision to finance non-clinical activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the organization of health care and health care systems, there is an increasing trend towards integrated care. Policy-makers from different countries are creating policies intended to promote cooperation and collaboration between health care providers, while facilitating the integration of different health care services. Hopes are high, as such collaboration and integration of care are believed to save resources and improve quality. However, policy-makers are likely to encounter various challenges and limitations when attempting to turn these great ideas into effective policies. In this paper, we look into these challenges.Main Body: We argue that the organization of health care and integrated care is of public concern, and should thus be of crucial interest to policy-makers. We highlight three challenges or limitations likely to be encountered by policy-makers in integrated care. These are: (1) conceptual challenges; (2) empirical/methodological challenges; and (3) resource challenges. We will argue that it is still unclear what integrated care means and how we should measure it. 'Integrated care' is a single label that can refer to a great number of different processes. It can describe the integration of care for individual patients, the integration of services aimed at particular patient groups or particular conditions, or it can refer to institution-wide collaborations between different health care providers. We subsequently argue that health reform inevitably possesses a political context that should be taken into account. We also show how evidence supporting integrated care may not guarantee success in every context. Finally, we will discuss how promoting collaboration and integration might actually demand more resources. In the final section, we look at three different paradigmatic examples of integrated care policy: Norway, the UK's NHS, and Belgium.Conclusions: There seems widespread agreement that collaboration and integration are the way forward for health care and health care systems. Nevertheless, we argue that policy-makers should remain careful; they should carefully consider what they hope to achieve, the amount of resources they are willing to invest, and how they will evaluate the success of their policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence is accumulating on the impact of the recent economic crisis on health and health systems across Europe. However, little is known about the effect this is having on physicians - a crucial resource for the delivery of healthcare services. This paper explores the adaptation to the crisis of public sector physicians and their ability to keep performing their functions, with the objective of gaining a better understanding of health workers' resilience under deteriorating conditions.Methods: We conducted a survey among 484 public primary care and hospital physicians in Portugal's capital city area and explored their perceptions of the crisis, adaptation and coping strategies. We used ordinal and logistic regression models to link changes in hours worked and intentions to migrate with physicians' characteristics and specific answers.Results: We found little evidence of physicians changing their overall allocation of working time before and after the crisis, with their age, types of specialisation, valuation of job flexibility and independence significantly associated with changes in public sector hours between 2010 and 2015. Being divorced, not Portuguese, of younger age, and working a high number of hours per week, were found to increase the probability of physicians considering migration, the same as having a poor opinion of recent government health policies. On the other hand, enjoying their current working environment, not wanting to disrupt provision of service, and leisure time were found to protect against scaling down public sector hours or considering migration.Conclusions: Our work on Portuguese physicians contributes to the debate on health workers' resilience, showing the value of understanding the influence of personal characteristics and opinions on their adaptation to changing circumstances, before designing policies to improve their working conditions and retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The direction of health service policy in England is for more diversification in the design, commissioning and provision of health care services. The case study which is the subject of this paper was selected specifically because of the partnering with a private sector organisation to manage whole system redesign of primary care and to support the commissioning of services for people with long term conditions at risk of unplanned hospital admissions and associated service provision activities. The case study forms part of a larger Department of Health funded project on the practice of commissioning which aims to find the best means of achieving a balance between monitoring and control on the one hand, and flexibility and innovation on the other, and to find out what modes of commissioning are most effective in different circumstances and for different services. Methods: A single case study method was adopted to explore multiple perspectives of the complexities and uniqueness of a public-private partnership referred to as the "Livewell project". 10 single depth interviews were carried out with key informants across the GP practices, the PCT and the private provider involved in the initiative. Results: The main themes arising from single depth interviews with the case study participants include a particular understanding about the concept of commissioning in the context of primary care, ambitions for primary care redesign, the importance of key roles and strong relationships, issues around the adoption and spread of innovation, and the impact of the current changes to commissioning arrangements. The findings identified a close and high trust relationship between GPs (the commissioners) and the private commissioning support and provider firm. The antecedents to the contract for the project being signed indicated the importance of leveraging external contacts and influence (resource dependency theory). Conclusions: The study has surfaced issues around innovation adoption in the healthcare context. The case identifies 'negotiated order', managerial performance of providers and disciplinary control as three media of power used in combination by commissioners. The case lends support for stewardship and resource dependency governance theories as explanations of the underpinning conditions for effective commissioning in certain circumstances within a quasi marketised healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of unmet eye care needs in sub-Saharan Africa is compounded by barriers to accessing eye care, limited engagement with communities, a shortage of appropriately skilled health personnel, and inadequate support from health systems. The renewed focus on primary health care has led to support for greater integration of eye health into national health systems. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate available evidence of integration of eye health into primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa from a health systems strengthening perspective. Methods: A scoping review method was used to gather and assess information from published literature, reviews, WHO policy documents and examples of eye and health care interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Findings were compiled using a health systems strengthening framework. Results: Limited information is available about eye health from a health systems strengthening approach. Particular components of the health systems framework lacking evidence are service delivery, equipment and supplies, financing, leadership and governance. There is some information to support interventions to strengthen human resources at all levels, partnerships and community participation; but little evidence showing their successful application to improve quality of care and access to comprehensive eye health services at the primary health level, and referral to other levels for specialist eye care. Conclusion: Evidence of integration of eye health into primary health care is currently weak, particularly when applying a health systems framework. A realignment of eye health in the primary health care agenda will require context specific planning and a holistic approach, with careful attention to each of the health system components and to the public health system as a whole. Documentation and evaluation of existing projects are required, as are pilot projects of systematic approaches to interventions and application of best practices. Multi-national research may provide guidance about how to scale up eye health interventions that are integrated into primary health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While translation of evidence into health policy and practice is recognised as critical to optimising health system performance and health-related outcomes for consumers, mechanisms to effectively achieve these goals are neither well understood, nor widely communicated. Health Networks represent a framework which offers a possible solution to this dilemma, particularly in light of emerging evidence regarding the importance of establishing relationships between stakeholders and identifying clinical leaders to drive evidence integration and translation into policy. This is particularly important for service delivery related to chronic diseases. In Western Australia (WA), disease and population-specific Health Networks are comprised of cross-discipline stakeholders who work collaboratively to develop evidence-informed policies and drive their implementation. Since establishment of the Health Networks in WA, over 50 evidence-informed Models of Care (MoCs) have been produced across 18 condition or population-focused Networks. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the Health Network framework in facilitating the translation of evidence into policy and practice with a particular focus on musculoskeletal health. Case presentation: A review of activities of the WA Musculoskeletal Health Network was undertaken, focussing on outcomes and the processes used to achieve them in the context of: development of policy, procurement of funding, stakeholder engagement, publications, and projects undertaken by the Network which aligned to implementation of MoCs. The Musculoskeletal Health Network has developed four MoCs which reflect Australian National Health Priority Areas. Establishment of community-based services for consumers with musculoskeletal health conditions is a key recommendation from these MoCs. Through mapping barriers and enablers to policy implementation, working groups, led by local clinical leaders and supported by the broader Network and government officers, have undertaken a range of integrated projects, such as the establishment of a community-based, multidisciplinary rheumatology service. The success of these projects has been contingent on developing relationships between key stakeholders across the health system. Conclusions: In WA, Networks have provided a sustainable mechanism to meaningfully engage consumers, carers, clinicians and other stakeholders; provided a forum to exchange ideas, information and evidence; and collaboratively plan and deliver evidence-based and contextually-appropriate health system improvements for consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is worldwide interest in managing the global burden of long-term conditions. Current health policy places emphasis on self-management and supporting patient participation as ways of improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. However, achieving genuine participation is difficult. This paper describes the development of an intervention designed to promote participation in the consultation and facilitate self-management in long-term conditions. In line with current guidance on the development of complex interventions, our aim was to develop and refine the initial intervention using qualitative methods, prior to more formal evaluation. Methods: We based the intervention on published evidence on effective ways of improving participation. The intervention was developed, piloted and evaluated using a range of qualitative methods. Firstly, focus groups with stakeholders (5 patients and 3 clinicians) were held to introduce the prototype and elucidate how it could be improved. Then individual 'think aloud' and qualitative interviews (n = 10) were used to explore how patients responded to and understood the form and provide further refinement. Results: The literature highlighted that effective methods of increasing participation include the use of patient reported outcome measures and values clarification exercises. The intervention (called PRISMS) integrated these processes, using a structured form which required patients to identify problems, rate their magnitude and identify their priority. PRISMS was well received by patients and professionals. In the individual qualitative interviews the main themes that emerged from the data related to (a) the content of the PRISMS (b) the process of completing PRISMS and how it could be operationalised in practice and (c) the outcomes of completing PRISMS for the patient. A number of different functions of PRISMS were identified by patients including its use as an aide-memoire, to provide a focus to consultations, to give permission to discuss certain issues, and to provide greater tailoring for the patient. Conclusions: There was evidence that patients found the PRISMS form acceptable and potentially useful. The challenge encountered by patients in completing PRISMS may encourage exploration of these issues within the consultation, complementing the more 'task focussed' aspects of consultations resulting from introduction of clinical guidelines and financial incentives. Further research is required to provide a rigorous assessment of the ability of tools like PRISMS to achieve genuine change in the process and outcome of consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The promotion of care pathways in the recent Governmental health policy reports of Lord Darzi is likely to increase efforts to promote the use of care pathways in the NHS. Evidence on the process of pathway implementation, however, is sparse and variations in how organisations go about the implementation process are likely to be large. This paper summarises what is known about factors which help or hinder clinicians in adopting and putting care pathways into practice, and which consequently promote or hinder the implementation of scientific evidence in clinical practice. Discussion: Care pathways can provide patients with clear expectations of their care, provide a means of measuring patient's progress, promote teamwork on a multi-disciplinary team, facilitate the use of guidelines, and may act as a basis for a payment system. In order to achieve adequate implementation, however, facilitators and barriers must be considered, planned for, and incorporated directly into the pathway with full engagement among clinical and management staff. Barriers and/or facilitators may be present at each stage of development, implementation and evaluation; and, barriers at any stage can impede successful implementation. Important considerations to be made are ensuring the inclusion of all types of staff, plans for evaluating and incorporating continuous improvements, allowing for organisational adaptations and promoting the use of multifaceted interventions. Summary: Although there is a dearth of information regarding the successful implementation of care pathways, evidence is available which may be applied when implementing a care pathway. Multifaceted interventions which incorporate all staff and facilitate organisational adaptations must be seriously considered and incorporated alongside care pathways in a continuous manner. In order to better understand the mechanism upon which care pathways are effective, however, more research specifically addressing conditions under which providers become engaged in using care pathways is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]