Search

This article examines the development of diverse quality systems in the otherwise quite similar Danish and Swedish public health sectors. After decades of numerous piecemeal medical and managerial quality development programs in both countries, a nationwide mandatory accreditation system was introduced in the Danish health services in 2009. Nationwide quality indicator projects are also found in Sweden, but there has been political attempt to introduce a compulsory system. This article seeks to explain this difference. It argues, first, that resistance from the medical professions blocked the introduction of compulsory, nationwide quality systems in both countries for decades. Second, the implementation of the Danish accreditation system was triggered by a combination of unintended policy learning produced by local reforms in two counties and of the Ministry of Health’s carefully orchestrated policy process that served to co-opt critical voices in the medical profession.

Quality management (QM) plays an important role in public organisations’ efforts to create better access to, and effectiveness of, specific services. When transferring QM models from market-based firms to public services provided by public organisations, several basic contrasts and even contradictions must be addressed. Core values of the public sector differ from those of the private sector, but what are the consequences of this distinction? In this article we discuss the importance of four central arguments on public services: rights and access have to be considered; equality is an important facet of public services; coerciveness is a unique feature of public services; and legitimacy can be improved by high-quality services. These arguments have not been discussed explicitly in the context of QM. Adding these central aspects of public services to the QM field could generate more sustainable ways for developing quality and QM in public services in particular and the public sector in general.

Syftet med den har avhandlingen ar att undersoka utvecklingen av kvalitetssystem i halso- och sjukvarden ur ett historiskt-institutionellt perspektiv utifran fallstudier och konceptuella analyser. ...

Healthcare registries, otherwise known in Sweden as national quality registries (NQRs), have progressed from being a patient-focused system supporting medical results to become the basis of a health policy steering instrument called regional comparisons (RCs). This article seeks to explain RCs as an unintended consequence of the NQR development, by utilizing the concepts of policy entrepreneurs and streams of impact: the problem stream (problem perceived), the policy stream (what is valid), and the political stream (governmental objectives). The empirical contribution lies in insights on how the RCs have developed as an unintended consequence of entrepreneurial deliberate action in the process of creating NQRs. These findings are based on documents, interviews, and previous research in the social sciences. The article also argues for a critical understanding of public knowledge management (PKM) related to experiences in the development of NQRs regarding how to use knowledge in healthcare government. This article highlights how knowledge generated in quality systems based on registries could imply a stronger role for authorities in exerting control over the medical profession. It also discusses the potential use of research evidence on NQRs as a base for more efficient policymaking.