Centre for Biomedicine, Self & Society, Usher Institute, Old Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, EdinburghEH8 9AG, UK.
School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, Michigan48109-2029, USA.
Health Econ Policy Law. 2020 Jul;15(3):289-307. doi: 10.1017/S1744133119000148. Epub 2019 Apr 12.
Public involvement in service change has been identified as a key facilitator of health care transformation (Foley et al., 2017) but little is known about how health policy influences whether and how organisations involve the public in change processes. This qualitative study compares policy and practice for involving the public in major service changes across the UK's four health systems (England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). We analysed policy documents, and conducted interviews with officials, stakeholders, NHS staff and public campaigners (total number of interviewees = 47). Involving the public in major service change was acknowledged as a policy challenge in all four systems. Despite ostensible similarities, there were some clear differences between the four health systems' processes for involving patients and the public in major changes to health services. The extent of central Government oversight, the prescriptiveness of Government guidance, the role for intermediary bodies and arrangements for independent scrutiny of contentious decisions all vary. We analyse how health policy in the four systems has used 'sticks' and 'sermons' to promote particular approaches, and conclude that both policy and the wider system context within which health care organisations try to effect change are significant, and understudied aspect of contemporary practice.
公众参与服务变革已被确定为医疗保健转型的关键促进因素(Foley 等人,2017),但对于健康政策如何影响组织是否以及如何将公众纳入变革过程,人们知之甚少。本定性研究比较了英国四个卫生系统(英格兰、北爱尔兰、威尔士和苏格兰)在主要服务变革中涉及公众的政策和实践。我们分析了政策文件,并对官员、利益相关者、NHS 工作人员和公众活动家进行了访谈(受访者总数=47)。在所有四个系统中,让公众参与重大服务变革都被认为是一个政策挑战。尽管表面上存在相似之处,但四个卫生系统在让患者和公众参与卫生服务重大变革方面的过程还是存在一些明显的差异。中央政府监督的程度、政府指导的规定性、中介机构的作用以及对有争议决定进行独立审查的安排都有所不同。我们分析了四个系统中的卫生政策如何利用“大棒”和“说教”来推动特定方法,并得出结论,政策和医疗保健组织试图实施变革的更广泛系统环境都是当代实践中重要且研究不足的方面。