Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:17:29.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and compromise in negotiating the new governance of medical performance: the clinical governance and revalidation policies in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

LAURA FENTON  and
BRIAN SALTER
LAURA FENTON
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, York University, Toronto
BRIAN SALTER*
Affiliation:
Director, Global Biopolitics Research Group, Centre for Biomedicine and Society, King's College London, London, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Brian Salter, Director, Global Biopolitics Research Group, Centre for Biomedicine and Society, School of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Strand Bridge House, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the development of two policies for the governance of medical performance in the UK: the Department of Health's (DH) clinical governance policy and the medical profession's revalidation policy. After discussing the institutional context in which each of these policies emerged, we examine how and why they were constructed. While the clinical governance policy was in large part a swift reaction to high-profile cases of medical misconduct in the late 1990s, revalidation was the profession's response to the politicisation of its self-regulatory apparatus. The profession took notably longer than the DH to piece together its policy as a result of internal disagreements about the role clinical standards should play in the evaluation of a doctor's fitness to practice. Following the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry in late 2004, the government stepped in and eventually introduced legislation that modifies the profession's policy. With clinical governance, the state – via arms-length regulatory organisations – has entered the clinic in new ways, strengthening hierarchy-based forms of governance in the governance of medical performance. However, the success of hierarchical forms of governance is likely to be restricted by the lack of a clear system of sanctioning and the state's reliance on a lengthy chain of command in the National Health Service for the implementation of clinical standards.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 4 , Issue 3: Governing Medical Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Pathways of Change , July 2009 , pp. 283 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (1999), Proposals for Revalidation, London: Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.Google Scholar
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Revalidation Leads Group of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (2000), How the Royal Colleges and Faculties might Contribute to the Process of Revalidation, London: Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.Google Scholar
British Medical Association (2007), ‘BMA response to the Health and Social Care Bill’, Press Release, 16 November, London: British Medical Association.Google Scholar
British Medical Journal (1998a), ‘The dark side of medicine’, British Medical Journal, 316: 1733 [Editorial].Google Scholar
British Medical Journal (1998b), ‘All changed, changed utterly’, British Medical Journal, 317: 1917–1918 [Editorial].Google Scholar
Chief Medical Officer (2001), The Removal, Retention and Use of Human Organs and Tissue from Post-mortem Examinations, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Chief Medical Officer (2007), Trust, Assurance and Safety: The Regulation of Health Professionals, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Coburn, D., Susan, R.Ivy, B. (1997), ‘Decline vs. retention of medical power through restratification: An examination of the Ontario case’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 19: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collings, J. (1950), ‘General practice in England today – a reconnaissance’, The Lancet, 1: 555–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (1997), The New NHS: Modern, Dependable, London: Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1998a), ‘NHS to have legal duty of ensuring quality for first time’, Press Release 98/141, 13 April, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1998b), A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2008), Health and Social Care Act 2008, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Doran, T., et al. (2006), ‘Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom’, New England Journal of Medicine, 4: 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidson, E. (1970), Profession of Medicine, New York: Dodd Mead.Google Scholar
General Medical Council (1995), Good Medical Practice, London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
General Medical Council (1999a), News, Spring, Issue 5, London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
General Medical Council (1999b), Report of the Revalidation Steering Group, London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. and Dowswell, G. (2002), ‘Autonomy and bureaucratic accountability in primary care: what English general practitioners say’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 24: 208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S., Moran, M., and Wood, B.(2002), ‘Policy emergence and policy convergence: the case of “scientific-bureaucratic medicine” in the USA and UK’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healthcare Commission (2006), Investigation into 10 Maternal Deaths At, or Following Delivery At, Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Between April 2002 and April 2005, London: Healthcare Commission.Google Scholar
Irvine, D. (2003), The Doctor's Tale: Professionalism and Public Trust, Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.Google Scholar
Klein, R. (1989), The Politics of the NHS, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Klein, R. (1990), ‘The state and the profession: the politics of the double bed’, British Medical Journal, 301: 700–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, M. (1999), Governing the Health Care State: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
National Health Service Executive (1999a), Clinical Governance: Quality in the New NHS. HSC 1999/065, Leeds: National Health Service Executive.Google Scholar
National Health Service Executive (1999b), The NHS Performance Assessment Framework, Leeds: National Health Service Executive.Google Scholar
National Health Service Information Centre, Quality and Outcomes Framework 2007/2008, Available at www.qof.ic.nhs.uk (accessed 17 October 2008).Google Scholar
Rappolt, S. (1997), ‘Clinical guidelines and the fate of medical autonomy in Ontario’, Social Science & Medicine, 44: 977–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodwin, M.A. (2001), ‘The politics of evidence-based medicine’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 26: 439–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of General Practitioners (2002), Good Medical Practice for General Practitioners, London: Royal College of General Practitioners.Google Scholar
Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital Inquiry (2001), Summary and Recommendations, London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Salter, B. (2004), The New Politics of Medicine, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (2001), ‘Royal Liverpool's Children's Inquiry published today’, Statement to the House of Commons, Press Release 2001/0059, 30 January.Google Scholar
Shipman Inquiry (2002), Death disguised, First Report, London: Shipman Inquiry (Chair: Dame Janet Smith DBE).Google Scholar
Shipman Inquiry (2005), Safeguarding patients: lessons from the past – proposals for the future, Fifth Report, London: Shipman Inquiry (Chair: Dame Janet Smith DBE).Google Scholar
Stacey, M. (1992), Regulating British Medicine: The General Medical Council, London: John Wiley.Google Scholar