Limits...
The public's voice about healthcare quality regulation policies. A population-based survey.

Bouwman R, Bomhoff M, de Jong JD, Robben P, Friele R - BMC Health Serv Res (2015)

Bottom Line: A gradual, and often soft approach, is favoured by the majority of the public in spite of the criticism that is voiced in the media regarding this approach.Our study contributes to the limited knowledge of public opinion on government regulation policies.This knowledge is needed in order to effectively assess different approaches to involve the public in regulation policies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, Netherlands. r.bouwman@nivel.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: In the wake of various high-profile incidents in a number of countries, regulators of healthcare quality have been criticised for their 'soft' approach. In politics, concerns were expressed about public confidence. It was claimed that there are discrepancies between public opinions related to values and the values guiding regulation policies. Although the general public are final clients of regulators' work, their opinion has only been discussed in research to a limited extent. The aim of this study is to explore possible discrepancies between public values and opinions and current healthcare quality regulation policies.

Methods: A questionnaire was submitted to 1500 members of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel. Questions were developed around central ideas underlying healthcare quality regulation policies.

Results: The response rate was 58.3%. The regulator was seen as being more responsible for quality of care than care providers. Patients were rated as having the least responsibility. Similar patterns were observed for the food service industry and the education sector. Complaints by patients' associations were seen as an important source of information for quality regulation, while fewer respondents trusted information delivered by care providers. However, respondents supported the regulator's imposition of lighter measures firstly.

Conclusions: There are discrepancies and similarities between public opinion and regulation policies. The discrepancies correspond to fundamental concepts; decentralisation of responsibilities is not what the public wants. There is little confidence in the regulator's use of information obtained by care providers' internal monitoring, while a larger role is seen for complaints of patient organisations. This discrepancy seems not to exist regarding the regulator's approach of imposing measures. A gradual, and often soft approach, is favoured by the majority of the public in spite of the criticism that is voiced in the media regarding this approach. Our study contributes to the limited knowledge of public opinion on government regulation policies. This knowledge is needed in order to effectively assess different approaches to involve the public in regulation policies.

Show MeSH
What the Healthcare Inspectorate should do when a care institution delivers poor care according to respondents of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel (N = 818-832)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4536787&req=5

Fig2: What the Healthcare Inspectorate should do when a care institution delivers poor care according to respondents of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel (N = 818-832)

Mentions: Respondents were asked what measures the Inspectorate should take in cases of poor care (Fig. 2). If a healthcare provider delivers poor care, the majority indicated that the Inspectorate should double-check the care institution (96.4 %) and provide recommendations for improvements (93.9 %). In addition, about 70 % of respondents agreed (totally or partially) that the Inspectorate should publish poor care delivery on its website. With respect to other possible regulatory measures, allowances should be made for the fact that between 20 and 48 % of the respondents answered indifferently (‘neither disagree nor agree’). Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that the Inspectorate should issue a fine when poor care was provided. Furthermore, 53.3 % of the respondents agreed (totally or partially) that the Inspectorate should temporarily take over the management of a poorly performing care institution. Slightly more than a quarter of all respondents indicated that the healthcare institution should be closed if it provides poor care.Fig. 2


The public's voice about healthcare quality regulation policies. A population-based survey.

Bouwman R, Bomhoff M, de Jong JD, Robben P, Friele R - BMC Health Serv Res (2015)

What the Healthcare Inspectorate should do when a care institution delivers poor care according to respondents of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel (N = 818-832)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4536787&req=5

Fig2: What the Healthcare Inspectorate should do when a care institution delivers poor care according to respondents of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel (N = 818-832)
Mentions: Respondents were asked what measures the Inspectorate should take in cases of poor care (Fig. 2). If a healthcare provider delivers poor care, the majority indicated that the Inspectorate should double-check the care institution (96.4 %) and provide recommendations for improvements (93.9 %). In addition, about 70 % of respondents agreed (totally or partially) that the Inspectorate should publish poor care delivery on its website. With respect to other possible regulatory measures, allowances should be made for the fact that between 20 and 48 % of the respondents answered indifferently (‘neither disagree nor agree’). Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that the Inspectorate should issue a fine when poor care was provided. Furthermore, 53.3 % of the respondents agreed (totally or partially) that the Inspectorate should temporarily take over the management of a poorly performing care institution. Slightly more than a quarter of all respondents indicated that the healthcare institution should be closed if it provides poor care.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: A gradual, and often soft approach, is favoured by the majority of the public in spite of the criticism that is voiced in the media regarding this approach.Our study contributes to the limited knowledge of public opinion on government regulation policies.This knowledge is needed in order to effectively assess different approaches to involve the public in regulation policies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, Netherlands. r.bouwman@nivel.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: In the wake of various high-profile incidents in a number of countries, regulators of healthcare quality have been criticised for their 'soft' approach. In politics, concerns were expressed about public confidence. It was claimed that there are discrepancies between public opinions related to values and the values guiding regulation policies. Although the general public are final clients of regulators' work, their opinion has only been discussed in research to a limited extent. The aim of this study is to explore possible discrepancies between public values and opinions and current healthcare quality regulation policies.

Methods: A questionnaire was submitted to 1500 members of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel. Questions were developed around central ideas underlying healthcare quality regulation policies.

Results: The response rate was 58.3%. The regulator was seen as being more responsible for quality of care than care providers. Patients were rated as having the least responsibility. Similar patterns were observed for the food service industry and the education sector. Complaints by patients' associations were seen as an important source of information for quality regulation, while fewer respondents trusted information delivered by care providers. However, respondents supported the regulator's imposition of lighter measures firstly.

Conclusions: There are discrepancies and similarities between public opinion and regulation policies. The discrepancies correspond to fundamental concepts; decentralisation of responsibilities is not what the public wants. There is little confidence in the regulator's use of information obtained by care providers' internal monitoring, while a larger role is seen for complaints of patient organisations. This discrepancy seems not to exist regarding the regulator's approach of imposing measures. A gradual, and often soft approach, is favoured by the majority of the public in spite of the criticism that is voiced in the media regarding this approach. Our study contributes to the limited knowledge of public opinion on government regulation policies. This knowledge is needed in order to effectively assess different approaches to involve the public in regulation policies.

Show MeSH