Divergence of NHS choice policy in the UK: what difference has patient choice policy in England made?

Author:

Sanderson Marie1,Allen Pauline2,Peckham Stephen3,Hughes David4,Brown Menna5,Kelly Grace6,Baldie Debbie7,Mays Nicholas8,Linyard Alison9,Duguid Anne10

Affiliation:

1. Research Fellow, Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK

2. Reader in Health Services Organisation, Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK

3. Professor of Health Policy and Director, Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent and Professor of Health Policy, Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK

4. Professor of Health Policy, Department of Public Health and Policy Studies, Swansea University, UK

5. Research Assistant, College of Medicine, Swansea University, UK

6. Research Assistant, School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast, UK

7. Research Assistant, Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, UK

8. Professor of Health Policy, Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK

9. Project Manager, Department of Public Health, NHS Fife, UK (Research Assistant at time of research, Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, UK)

10. Research Associate, Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, UK

Abstract

Objectives To examine the types of choices available to patients in the English NHS when being referred for acute hospital care in the light of the divergence of patient choice policy in the four countries of the UK. Methods Case studies of eight local health economies in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (two in each country); 125 semi-structured interviews with staff in acute services providers, purchasers and general practitioners (GPs). Results GPs and providers in England both had a clear understanding of the choice of provider policy and the right of patients to choose a provider. Other referral choices potentially available to patients in all four countries were date and time of appointment, site and specialist. In practice, the availability of these choices differed between and within countries and was shaped by factors beyond choice policy, such as the number of providers in an area. There were similarities between the four countries in the way choices were offered to patients, namely lack of clarity about the options available, limited discussion of choices between referrers and patients, and tension between offering choice and managing waiting lists. Conclusions There are challenges in implementing pro-choice policy in health care systems where it has not traditionally existed. Differences between England and the other countries of the UK were limited in the way choice was offered to patients. A cultural shift is needed to ensure that patients are fully informed by GPs of the choices available to them.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Cited by 5 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