Suchergebnisse

__Abstract__ Researchers are increasingly expected to deliver ''socially robust knowledge'' that is not only scientifically reliable but also takes into account demands from societal actors. This article focuses on an empirical example where these additional criteria are explicitly organized into research settings. We investigate how the multiple ''accountabilities'' are managed in such ''responsive research settings.'' This article provides an empirical account of such an organizational format: the Dutch Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health. We present a cross-case analysis of four collaborative research projects conducted within this context. We build on (and extend) Miller's notion of ''hybrid management.'' The article shows that the extended concept of hybrid management is useful to study the different accountabilities encountered in such settings. We analyze how the collaboration developed and which conflicts or dilemmas arose. We then focus on the different hybrid management strategies used in the collaboration. The empirical material shows how the different aspects of hybrid management feature in various configurations in the four projects. We highlight that hybrid management strategies may be used by different groups or at different moments, may reinforce or contradict each other, and may be more or less effective at different points in time.

Dutch experience shows how scientific advisory bodies can cope with the growing political demands for transparency and lay participation without compromising their function ; __Summary points__ Scientific advisory bodies face increasing calls to be transparent and allow public participation Advisory bodies need to provide substantive rather than full procedural transparency Substantive transparency requires some parts of the advisory process to be concealed from the public Attributing experiential or consequential expertise enables lay voices to be heard in the advisory process

This article studies the role of a public regulator in managing the performance of healthcare professionals. It combines a networked governance perspective with responsive regulation theory to show the mechanisms that have added to significant changes in medical cost management in the Netherlands. In a five‐year period, hospital practices transitioned from cosmetic compliance with performance regulation and strategic upcoding to institutionalized compliance more in line with regulatory goals. The article demonstrates how policy changes transformed incentive structures, introduced new forms of accountability, and added actors to the network with technocratic disciplining tasks. The networked character of performance regulation offered opportunities for a responsive, non‐coercive regulatory strategy that engaged various actors in a regulatory conversation about strategic coding. Responsive regulation can reduce strategic responses to performance regulation and manage the gap between administrative and clinical logics. The case study contributes to our understanding of the effectiveness of responsive, non‐punitive regulation in networked settings.

Institutional arrangements used to steer public policies have increasingly become layered. Inspired by the literature on institutional layering and institutional work, this paper aims to make a contribution to our understanding of institutional layering. We do so by studying an interesting case of layering: the Dutch hospital sector. We focus on the actors responsible for the internal governance (Board of Directors and Supervisory Boards) and the external regulation (the Healthcare Inspectorate) of hospitals. In the paper, we explore the institutional work of these actors, more specifically how institutional work results from and is influenced by institutional layering and how this in turn influences the institutional makeup of both healthcare organizations and their institutional context. Our approach allowed us to see that layering changes the activities of actors in the public sector, can be used to strengthen one's position but also presents actors with new struggles, which they in turn can try to overcome by relating and using the institutionally layered context. Layering and institutional work are therefore in continuous interaction. Combining institutional layering with a focus on the lived experiences of actors and their institutional work makes it possible to move into the layered arrangement and better understand its consequences.

In this commentary, we reflect on Rinaldi and Bekker's scoping review of the literature on populist radical right (PRR) parties and welfare policies. We argue that their review provides political scientists and healthcare scholars with a firm basis to further explore the relationships between populism and welfare policies in different political systems. In line with the authors, we furthermore (re)emphasize the need for additional empirical inquiries into the relationship between populism and healthcare. But instead of expanding the research agenda suggested – for instance by adding categories or niches in which this relationship can be observed – we would like to challenge some of the premises of the studies conducted and reviewed thus far. We do so by identifying two concerns and by illustrating these concerns with two examples from the Netherlands.

Background: To afford efficient and high quality care, healthcare providers increasingly need to exchange patient data. The existence of a communication network amongst care providers will help them to exchange patient data more efficiently. Information and communication technology (ICT) has much potential to facilitate the development of such a communication network. Moreover, in order to offer integrated care interoperability of healthcare organizations based upon the exchanged data is of crucial importance. However, complications around such a development are beyond technical impediments. Objectives: To determine the challenges and complexities involved in building an Inter-organisational Communication network (IOCN) in healthcare and the appropriations in the strategies. Case study: Interviews, literature review, and document analysis were conducted to analyse the developments that have taken place toward building a countrywide electronic patient record and its challenges in The Netherlands. Due to the interrelated nature of technical and non-technical problems, a socio-technical approach was used to analyse the data and define the challenges. Results: Organisational and cultural changes are necessary before technical solutions can be applied. There are organisational, financial, political, and ethicolegal challenges that have to be addressed appropriately. Two different approaches, one ''centralised'' and the other ''decentralised'' have been used by Dutch healthcare providers to adopt the necessary changes and cope with these challenges. Conclusion: The best solutions in building an IOCN have to be drawn from both the centralised and the decentralised approaches. Local communication initiatives have to be supervised and supported centrally and incentives at the organisations' interest level have to be created to encourage the stakeholder organisations to adopt the necessary changes.

Background National regulatory regimes for supervising ongoing clinical trials are affected by external challenges, both international, such as harmonization of EU legislation, and national, such as critical reviews of incidents. This study examines how supervisory bodies dealing with ongoing trials respond to external challenges of the past two decades and engage in institutional work to maintain, repair, or improve the Dutch regulatory regime. Methods International and national regulatory documents were analyzed and interviews (n = 27) were conducted with various actors, including public supervisory bodies, hospital staff, and boards of directors. Findings In the Netherlands, EU harmonization directed at centralizing and coordinating the regulatory regime for good clinical trial practice in Member States has paradoxically led to further fragmentation. The resulting ambiguity and inefficiency remained largely unresolved until a serious incident in a university hospital became a catalyst to clarify both the interconnected responsibilities and working relationships of various supervisory bodies. New legislation and regulatory methods were implemented, and actors outside the legislative framework became active in the field in order to strengthen supervision of ongoing trials, further multiplying yet also aligning with existing regulatory regimes. Conclusions Public supervision of ongoing trials is fragmented in the Netherlands because the responsibilities and resources are unevenly distributed. In countries like the Netherlands, public supervisory bodies must do a great deal of institutional work to align with new EU regulations and still safeguard their traditional regulatory mechanisms that protect human safety. However, national regulatory traditions also offer new opportunities to strengthen the quality assurance of clinical trials.

Background: The rise of multi-morbidity constitutes a serious challenge in health and social care organisation that requires a shift from disease- towards person-centred integrated care. The aim of the current study was to develop a conceptual framework that can aid the development, implementation, description, and evaluation of integrated care programmes for multi-morbidity. Methods: A scoping review and expert discussions were used to identify and structure concepts for integrated care for multi-morbidity. A search of scientific and grey literature was conducted. Discussion: meetings were organised within the SELFIE research project with representatives of five stakeholder groups (5Ps): patients, partners, professionals, payers, and policy makers. Results: In the scientific literature 11,641 publications were identified, 92 were included for data extraction. A draft framework was constructed that was adapted after discussion with SELFIE partners from 8 EU countries and 5P representatives. The core of the framework is the holistic understanding of the person with multi-morbidity in his or her environment. Around the core, concepts were grouped into adapted WHO components of health systems: service delivery, leadership & governance, workforce, financing, technologies & medical products, and information & research. Within each component micro, meso, and macro levels are distinguished. Conclusion: The framework structures relevant concepts in integrated care for multi-morbidity and can be applied by different stakeholders to guide development, implementation, description, and evaluation.