Divergent notions of “quality” in healthcare policy implementation: a framing perspective

Author:

Marani HusaynORCID,Evans Jenna M.,Palmer Karen S.ORCID,Brown Adalsteinn,Martin Danielle,Ivers Noah M.

Abstract

PurposeThis paper examines how “quality” was framed in the design and implementation of a policy to reform hospital funding and associated care delivery. The aims of the study were: (1) To describe how government policy-makers who designed the policy and managers and clinicians who implemented the policy framed the concept of “quality” and (2) To explore how frames of quality and the framing process may have influenced policy implementation.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a secondary analysis of data from a qualitative case study involving semi-structured interviews with 45 purposefully selected key informants involved in the design and implementation of the quality-based procedures policy in Ontario, Canada. The authors used framing theory to inform coding and analysis.FindingsThe authors found that policy designers perpetuated a broader frame of quality than implementers who held more narrow frames of quality. Frame divergence was further characterized by how informants framed the relationship between clinical and financial domains of quality. Several environmental and organizational factors influenced how quality was framed by implementers.Originality/valueAs health systems around the world increasingly implement new models of governance and financing to strengthen quality of care, there is a need to consider how “quality” is framed in the context of these policies and with what effect. This is the first framing analysis of “quality” in health policy.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)

Reference54 articles.

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2016), “The six domains of health care quality”, available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/talkingquality/create/sixdomains.html (accessed 5 March 2020).

2. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare (2009), “Developing a safety and quality framework for Australia”, available at: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/Developing-a-Safety-and-Quality-Framework-for-Australia.pdf (accessed 28 August 2020).

3. Ideas and social policy: an institutionalist perspective;Social Policy and Administration,2005

4. Quality of care—what is it?;New England Journal of Medicine,1996

5. Document analysis as a qualitative research method;Qualitative Research Journal,2009

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3