Successfully changing the mode of regulation in clinical priority setting: how organisational factors contributed to establishing the Norwegian priority guidelines for specialist health care services.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-08 DOI:10.1017/S1744133123000014
Irene Aase-Kvåle
{"title":"Successfully changing the mode of regulation in clinical priority setting: how organisational factors contributed to establishing the Norwegian priority guidelines for specialist health care services.","authors":"Irene Aase-Kvåle","doi":"10.1017/S1744133123000014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article investigates factors that contributed to the successful introduction of 33 priority guidelines for Norwegian specialist health care from 2008 to 2012. The guidelines constituted an important step in changing the regulation of clinical priority setting from largely self-regulation by medical professionals to a more centralised and hierarchical form, and therefore, resistance from the medical profession was expected. My focus is on organisational factors within the project that developed the guidelines, using policy documents and project documents as the main source of data. I find that the project was characterised by a high level of autonomy in terms of how it was organised and the actors included, with significant capacity for action in terms of both structure and personnel, and a broad inclusion of affected actors. The priority guideline project was dominated by medical professionals, and its organisation did not represent a radical break with established traditions of medical professional self-regulation. Although organisational autonomy, action capacity and broad inclusion were clearly of importance, the project's compliance with historical traditions and norms of medical governance stands out as the key factor in understanding the successful establishment of the priority guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":"18 3","pages":"234-247"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article investigates factors that contributed to the successful introduction of 33 priority guidelines for Norwegian specialist health care from 2008 to 2012. The guidelines constituted an important step in changing the regulation of clinical priority setting from largely self-regulation by medical professionals to a more centralised and hierarchical form, and therefore, resistance from the medical profession was expected. My focus is on organisational factors within the project that developed the guidelines, using policy documents and project documents as the main source of data. I find that the project was characterised by a high level of autonomy in terms of how it was organised and the actors included, with significant capacity for action in terms of both structure and personnel, and a broad inclusion of affected actors. The priority guideline project was dominated by medical professionals, and its organisation did not represent a radical break with established traditions of medical professional self-regulation. Although organisational autonomy, action capacity and broad inclusion were clearly of importance, the project's compliance with historical traditions and norms of medical governance stands out as the key factor in understanding the successful establishment of the priority guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成功改变确定临床优先事项的监管模式:组织因素如何促进制定挪威专科医疗服务优先事项指南。
本文研究了2008年至2012年期间挪威专科医疗保健成功引入33项优先事项指南的因素。这些指南是将临床优先事项的确定从主要由医疗专业人员自我监管转变为更加集中化和分级管理形式的重要一步,因此,来自医疗专业人员的阻力是意料之中的。我将以政策文件和项目文件为主要数据来源,重点关注制定指南项目中的组织因素。我发现,该项目在组织方式和参与者方面具有高度的自主性,在结构和人员方面都有很强的行动能力,并广泛吸纳了受影响的参与者。优先指南项目由医学专业人员主导,其组织方式并没有彻底打破既定的医学专业自律传统。虽然组织的自主性、行动能力和广泛的包容性显然非常重要,但该项目是否符合医疗管理的历史传统和规范,则是理解优先指南能否成功制定的关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
How should medicines reimbursement work? The views of Spanish experts. Success and failure in establishing national physician databases: a comparison between Canada and Israel. Implications of the fair processes for financing UHC report for development assistance: reflections and an application of the decision-making principles to PEPFAR. A systematic literature review of real-world evidence (RWE) on post-market assessment of medical devices. Response to critics of Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1