Institute of Health and Care Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden.
Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
J Health Organ Manag. 2022 Nov 11;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1108/JHOM-02-2022-0036.
This study aimed to describe facilitators and barriers in terms of regulation and financing of healthcare due to the implementation and use of person-centred care (PCC).
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A qualitative design was adopted, using interviews at three different levels: micro = hospital ward, meso = hospital management, and macro = national board/research. Inclusion criteria were staff working in healthcare as first line managers, hospital managers, and officials/researchers on national healthcare systems, such as Bismarck, Beveridge, and mixed/out-of-pocket models, to obtain a European perspective.
Countries, such as Great Britain and Scandinavia (Beveridge tax-based health systems), were inclined to implement and use person-centred care. The relative freedom of a market (Bismarck/mixed models) did not seem to nurture demand for PCC. In countries with an autocratic culture, that is, a high-power distance, such as Mediterranean countries, PCC was regarded as foreign and not applicable. Another reason for difficulties with PCC was the tendency for corruption to hinder equity and promote inertia in the healthcare system.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The sample of two to three participants divided into the micro, meso, and macro level for each included country was problematic to find due to contacts at national level, a bureaucratic way of working. Some information got caught in the system, and why data collection was inefficient and ran out of time. Therefore, a variation in participants at different levels (micro, meso, and macro) in different countries occurred. In addition, only 27 out of the 49 European countries were included, therefore, conclusions regarding healthcare system are limited.
Support at the managerial level, together with patient rights supported by European countries' laws, facilitated the diffusion of PCC.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Fragmented health systems divided by separate policy documents or managerial roadmaps hindered local or regional policies and made it difficult to implement innovation as PCC. Therefore, support at the managerial level, together with patient rights supported by European countries' laws, facilitated the diffusion of PCC.
本研究旨在描述由于实施和使用以患者为中心的护理(PCC)而在医疗保健的监管和融资方面的促进因素和障碍。
设计/方法/途径:采用定性设计,在三个不同层面进行访谈:微观=医院病房,中观=医院管理,宏观=国家委员会/研究。纳入标准为作为一线管理人员、医院管理人员以及国家医疗体系的官员/研究人员(如俾斯麦、贝弗里奇和混合/自付模式)从事医疗保健工作的员工,以获得欧洲视角。
英国和斯堪的纳维亚国家(贝弗里奇税收为基础的健康系统)倾向于实施和使用以患者为中心的护理。相对自由的市场(俾斯麦/混合模式)似乎没有培育对 PCC 的需求。在具有独裁文化的国家,即权力距离较高的国家,如地中海国家,PCC 被视为外来的、不适用的。实施 PCC 困难的另一个原因是腐败倾向于阻碍医疗保健系统的公平性并促进其僵化。
研究局限性/影响:由于在国家层面上的联系以及官僚主义的工作方式,每个纳入国家的微观、中观和宏观层面的两到三个参与者样本都存在问题。一些信息在系统中受阻,这就是为什么数据收集效率低下且时间不足的原因。因此,不同国家的不同层面(微观、中观和宏观)的参与者发生了变化。此外,仅纳入了 49 个欧洲国家中的 27 个,因此,关于医疗保健系统的结论是有限的。
管理层的支持,加上欧洲国家法律支持的患者权利,促进了 PCC 的传播。
原创性/价值:碎片化的卫生系统被单独的政策文件或管理路线图分割,阻碍了地方或区域政策的实施,并使 PCC 等创新难以实施。因此,管理层的支持,加上欧洲国家法律支持的患者权利,促进了 PCC 的传播。