Search

Background: High profile failures of care in the NHS have raised concerns about regulatory systems for health‐care professionals and organizations. In response, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the regulator of health and social care in England overhauled its regulatory regime. It moved to inspections which made much greater use of expert knowledge, data and views from a range of stakeholders, including service users. Objective: We explore the role of service users and citizens in health and social care regulation, including how CQC involved people in inspecting and rating health and social care providers. Design: We analyse CQC reports and documents, and 61 interviews with CQC staff and representatives of groups of service users and citizens and voluntary sector organizations to explore the place of service user voice in regulatory processes. Results: Care Quality Commission invited comments and facilitated the sharing of existing service user experiences and engaged with representatives of groups of service users and voluntary sector organizations. CQC involved service users in their inspections as "experts by experience." Information from service users informed both the inspection regime and individual inspections, but CQC was less focused on giving feedback to service users who contributed to these activities. Discussion and conclusions: Service users can make an important contribution to regulation by sharing their experiences and having their voices heard, but their involvement was somewhat transactional, and largely on terms set by CQC. There may be scope for CQC to build more enduring relationships with service user groups and to engage them more effectively in the regulatory regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyse how competition is experienced and characterized by NHS and independent sector acute care providers in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 49 senior staff in 15 NHS trusts and independent sector providers between November 2008 and April 2009, in England. Results: The market was predominantly defined based on geographical proximity. Competition was mainly on the periphery of catchment areas but markets were differentiated based on the scope and type of services. Niche providers, specialist hospitals and tertiary centres did not directly compete with district general hospital-type providers. Competitors were increasingly primary and community care providers, while there was little perceived threat from the private sector. There were many examples of how different providers (both NHS and independent sector) were co-operating and collaborating. Patients and general practitioners (GPs) appeared to be loyal to local providers. Conclusion: The providers' view of the market and the relevance of historical relationships and loyalties suggest fine grained variations in competition which is consistent with a relational rather than structural approach to competition. Also the evidence on embeddedness of relationships implies that collaboration might be a strong lever for quality improvement locally. Finally, some of the agreements found might be deemed in breach of the rules of competition but they may well be in the interests of patients and taxpayers, with implications for regulation in publicly funded health care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses some of the ways to develop resilience in the medical community. These include building strong social networks, fostering psychological resilience in order to better deal with the emotional drain of medical practice, reframing setbacks in the positive way, and understanding and maximizing the use of one's strengths.

As the health service's financial challenge deepens, Ruth Robertson looks at the six types of rationing identified by Klein and Maybin and asks to what extent they apply today.