Suchergebnisse

The setting of quantitative, time-limited ?targets? backed up by institutional and managerial rewards and sanctions has been a notable feature of performance improvement efforts in the National Health Service (NHS) in England since 1998 and especially in the period 2000-2004. Performance improved in the areas covered by English NHS targets, most markedly in relation to waiting times, but also in relation to treatment outcomes. None of the other parts of the United Kingdom followed England and similar trends were not observed, particularly not in waiting times, despite similar injections of funds. Despite the improvements in performance in target areas, targets were criticised, principally, for having perverse and unintended consequences (e.g. distorting priorities, encouraging ?gaming?, etc) which could have potentially out-weighed their benefits. On the other hand most experts in performance improvement in public services argue that carefully chosen, incentivised targets are a useful part of the performance management repertoire when used well (e.g. when sanctions and rewards are proportionate). Some dysfunctional consequences are to be expected, but can be mitigated. Given the similarities between the English NHS and the New Zealand public health system, there is scope to use targets and related incentives sparingly to improve performance in New Zealand in areas of high importance to government and the public.

All methods of dividing public expenditure between competing claims become contentious, particularly when they rely on social indicators of need. The Resource Allocation Working Party (RAW) formula devised in 1976 for distributing National Health Service financial resources fairly between different parts of England relies on the size, age/sex structure and mortality rates (in the form of standardized mortality ratios – SMRS) of populations as combined surrogates for their need for health care. This paper aims to demonstrate three things: first, that RAW'S approach in selecting SMRS was sure‐footed; second, that no better proxy of health care need which could be used in RAW has been produced since RAW; and third, that the continuing criticism of SMRS has been sustained by political pressures within the NHS. The result has been the application of ever more indirect and complex surrogates for'need in the resource allocation process which are known to be contaminated by the prevailing unequal supply of health service facilities.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface to the Fourth Edition -- List of Contributors -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- 1.1 What Is Qualitative Research? -- 1.2 The Uses of Qualitative Research -- 1.3 Methods Used in Qualitative Research -- 1.4 The Place of Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research -- 1.5 Outline of the Structure of the Book -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 2 The Role of Theory in Qualitative Research -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Differences in Ontology and Epistemology -- 2.3 Implications of Ontology and Epistemology -- 2.4 Choose Your Philosophical Umbrella - Positivism or Interpretivism? -- 2.5 Theoretical Perspectives -- 2.6 Methodology -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 3 Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Ethical Principles -- 3.2.1 Informed Consent -- 3.2.2 Confidentiality -- 3.2.3 Anonymity -- 3.3 Situational Ethics -- 3.4 Relational Ethics -- 3.5 Conclusion -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 4 Interviews -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 What Makes a Good Qualitative Interview? -- 4.3 Role of the Interviewer -- 4.4 The Practicalities of Qualitative Interviews -- 4.4.1 How Many Interviews Is Enough? -- 4.4.2 Sampling -- 4.4.3 Recruitment -- 4.4.4 Fundamentals - Quiet Space, Recording, and Transcription -- 4.4.5 Designing a Topic Guide -- 4.4.6 Data Saturation -- 4.5 Reflexivity -- 4.6 Conclusion -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 5 Focus Groups -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 What Is a Focus Group? -- 5.3 Doing Focus Group Research -- 5.3.1 Recruitment and Sampling -- 5.3.2 Initiating the Focus Group -- 5.3.3 Follow-on or Second Focus Groups -- 5.4 Analysis -- 5.5 Ethical Issues -- 5.6 Conclusion -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 6 Observational Methods -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Observational Methods and Ethnography.

Greece has enacted three major health care reforms since the National Health System (NHS) was established in 1983. These reforms were designed to improve the system's ability to realize its founding principles of equity and efficiency in the delivery and financing of health services. This article presents an early report of ongoing doctoral research that aims to examine the relative influence of medical professional organizations versus other interests on these reforms. The article outlines three theoretical frameworks for understanding the health care system and the role of the medical profession within it in order to establish which best explains the nature and extent of health care reform. These frameworks are: sociological theories of professions; historical institutionalism; and structural interest theory.

Research Highlights and Abstract The article investigates which of two competing accounts of contemporary British policy making better captures the nature of policy making during episodes of major reform of the English NHS. The analysis of the formulation of the English NHS Plan 2000 suggests that the Asymmetric Power Model better describes the reality of NHS policy making under New Labour than the Differentiated Polity Model. Although the process of developing the Plan showed signs of a more open policy process, it was tightly controlled and personally led by the Secretary of State for Health and his close advisers, reflecting an underlying British political tradition that emphasises the idea that the NHS has to be continuously improved with change led from above by central government. However, when compared to the processes underpinning Thatcher's Ministerial Review of the NHS and the 2010 Coalition government's White Paper, if ever NHS policy making in England were to have come close to the Differentiated Polity Model, it would have been during the formulation of the 2000 NHS Plan. Through a case study of the formulation of the English NHS Plan 2000, this article investigates which of two competing models of the British policy process—the Differentiated Polity and Asymmetric Power Models—better describes the reality of major NHS reform policy making under New Labour. The process of developing the Plan showed signs of a more open policy process, seemingly closer to the DPM. There was contestability of policy advice and limited involvement of the medical profession through its representative bodies. However, the process was tightly controlled and personally led by the Secretary of State and his advisers, with the direct involvement of the Prime Minister throughout. Two key moments of interest group involvement—the Modernisation Action Teams and the signing of the Plan by health sector organisations—were marked by power asymmetries. Overall, the APM better describes the reality of major reform policy making under New Labour.