Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research article

Experiences from Decentralised Radiological Services in Norway – a rural case study

Authors: Aud Mette Myklebust, Hilde Eide, Brian Ellis, Rona Beattie

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Implementation of the Norwegian government’s Coordination Reform (2012) aims to decentralise health care services from centralised hospitals to local communities. Radiological services in Norway are mainly organised in hospitals, because of the significant financial and human resource demands engendered by the need for advanced technological equipment, and specialised staff. Some selected conventional x-ray services have been decentralised into rural communities. The purpose of this single case study was to highlight experiences from different stakeholders’ of organising decentralised radiological services in a rural area in Norway.

Methods

A qualitative single case study design was adopted, collected data using focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers to obtain stakeholder’s experiences of the radiological services in this rural area. The key emergent themes from the literature, decentralisation, quality, professional roles, organisation and economic consequences were discussed with each focus group. Thematic analysis was used for analyzing the primary data collected.

Results

Four main themes emerged from the focus groups: 1) organisation, 2) quality and safety, 3) funding of radiological services and 4) cooperation between health care professions and health care levels. It was found that the organisation of decentralised radiological services to rural areas is challenging because of the way health services are structured in Norway. The quality of service was found to be inadequate in some areas because of the superficial level of training given to non-radiographic staff. The experience is that the Norwegian funding system hinders an efficient decentralised health care service. Effective cooperation and responsibility between health care professions and levels was challenging. There needs to be improved co-working by clearly defining roles and responsibilities.

Conclusions

A key recommendation for the organisation of rural radiological service was the development of a satellite link with an acute hospital. Quality of the service could be improved and should be given priority. Structural change to the financial system whereby money follows patients, might also facilitate more patientcentred services across healthcare levels. Improved mutual understanding between rural radiological services and hospital specialists and managers is important for a high quality and consistent radiological service to be delivered across Norway.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fredriksson M, Winblad U. Consequences of a decentralized healthcare governance model: measuring regional authority support for patient choice in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(2):271–9.CrossRef Fredriksson M, Winblad U. Consequences of a decentralized healthcare governance model: measuring regional authority support for patient choice in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(2):271–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Saltman RB, Bankauskaite V, Vrangbæk K. Decentralization in health care: strategies and outcome. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2007. Saltman RB, Bankauskaite V, Vrangbæk K. Decentralization in health care: strategies and outcome. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2007.
5.
go back to reference Rondinelli DA. What is decentralization? In: Litvack J, Seddon J, editors. Decentralization briefing notes. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Institute; 1999. p. 2–5. Rondinelli DA. What is decentralization? In: Litvack J, Seddon J, editors. Decentralization briefing notes. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Institute; 1999. p. 2–5.
6.
go back to reference Saltman RB, Bankauskaite V. Conceptualizing decentralization in European health systems: a functional perspective. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2006;1(02):127–47.CrossRef Saltman RB, Bankauskaite V. Conceptualizing decentralization in European health systems: a functional perspective. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2006;1(02):127–47.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Pollitt C, Birchall J, Putman K. Decentralising public service management. London: Macmillian; 1998.CrossRef Pollitt C, Birchall J, Putman K. Decentralising public service management. London: Macmillian; 1998.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Beck A, Boulton M. Building an Effective Workforce. A Systematic Review of Public Health Workforce Literature. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(5S1):6–16.CrossRef Beck A, Boulton M. Building an Effective Workforce. A Systematic Review of Public Health Workforce Literature. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(5S1):6–16.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Mills A, et al. Health system decentralization: concepts, issues and country experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1990. Mills A, et al. Health system decentralization: concepts, issues and country experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1990.
11.
go back to reference Mosca I. Is decentralisation the real solution? A three country study. Health Policy. 2006;77:113–20.CrossRef Mosca I. Is decentralisation the real solution? A three country study. Health Policy. 2006;77:113–20.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Doyle JJ Jr, Ewer SM, Wagner TH. Returns to physician human capital: evidence from pat randomized to physician teams. J Health Econ. 2010;29:866–82.CrossRef Doyle JJ Jr, Ewer SM, Wagner TH. Returns to physician human capital: evidence from pat randomized to physician teams. J Health Econ. 2010;29:866–82.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Patel V. A framework for secure and decentralized sharing of medical imaging data via blockchain consensus. Health Inform J. 2019;25(4):1398–411.CrossRef Patel V. A framework for secure and decentralized sharing of medical imaging data via blockchain consensus. Health Inform J. 2019;25(4):1398–411.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lappegard Ø, Hjortdahl P. Percevied quality of an alternative to acute hospitalization: an analytical study at a community hospital in Hallingdal, Norway. Soc Sci Med. 2014;119:27–35.CrossRef Lappegard Ø, Hjortdahl P. Percevied quality of an alternative to acute hospitalization: an analytical study at a community hospital in Hallingdal, Norway. Soc Sci Med. 2014;119:27–35.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference HOD, St.meld.nr 47 Samhandlingsreformen [Report No. 47 to the Storting Coordination reform], H.o.o. (HOD), Editor. 2008, Helse og omsorgsdepartementet (HOD): Norway Norsk Radiologisk Forening. Beskrivende radiografer 2016. HOD, St.​meld.​nr 47 Samhandlingsreformen [Report No. 47 to the Storting Coordination reform], H.o.o. (HOD), Editor. 2008, Helse og omsorgsdepartementet (HOD): Norway Norsk Radiologisk Forening. Beskrivende radiografer 2016.
17.
go back to reference Huseby B. M ed. 2012. Samhandlingsstatistikk, 2010. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet. Huseby B. M ed. 2012. Samhandlingsstatistikk, 2010. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet.
18.
go back to reference Borras C. Defining the medical imaging requirements for a rural health center. Singapore: Springer; 2017.CrossRef Borras C. Defining the medical imaging requirements for a rural health center. Singapore: Springer; 2017.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cramton P, Bhargava A. The community-referred radiology scheme: an evaluation. The New Zealand Med J. 2006;119:1236. Cramton P, Bhargava A. The community-referred radiology scheme: an evaluation. The New Zealand Med J. 2006;119:1236.
20.
go back to reference Smith T, Fisher K. Self-reported competency and continuing education needs of limited licence remote X-ray operators in New South Wales, Australia. Rural Remote Health. 2011;11(2):1560.PubMed Smith T, Fisher K. Self-reported competency and continuing education needs of limited licence remote X-ray operators in New South Wales, Australia. Rural Remote Health. 2011;11(2):1560.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Department of Health Victoria. Evaluation of three better skills best care pilot projects; 2011. Department of Health Victoria. Evaluation of three better skills best care pilot projects; 2011.
22.
go back to reference Smith T, Jones P. Remote x-ray radiography: a case study in interprofessional rural clinical practice. J Interprof Care. 2007;21(3):289–302.CrossRef Smith T, Jones P. Remote x-ray radiography: a case study in interprofessional rural clinical practice. J Interprof Care. 2007;21(3):289–302.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Roberts GH, Dunscombe PB, Samant RS. 2008. Geographic delivery models for radiotherapy services. Australas Radiol. 2002;46:290–4.CrossRef Roberts GH, Dunscombe PB, Samant RS. 2008. Geographic delivery models for radiotherapy services. Australas Radiol. 2002;46:290–4.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Lysdahl KB, Børretzen I. Geographical variation in radiological services: a nationwide survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:21.CrossRef Lysdahl KB, Børretzen I. Geographical variation in radiological services: a nationwide survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:21.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Mundal A. Leger i kommune- og spesialisthelsetjenesten: vekst i antall leger. Statistics Norway: Oslo; 2011. Mundal A. Leger i kommune- og spesialisthelsetjenesten: vekst i antall leger. Statistics Norway: Oslo; 2011.
27.
go back to reference Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2009. Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2009.
28.
go back to reference Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2011. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2011.
29.
go back to reference Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2007. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2007.
30.
go back to reference Halkier B. Focus groups as social enactments: integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qual Res[online]. 2010;10(1):71–89.CrossRef Halkier B. Focus groups as social enactments: integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qual Res[online]. 2010;10(1):71–89.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Gill P, et al. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):291–5.CrossRef Gill P, et al. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):291–5.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRef Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2010. King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2010.
34.
go back to reference BBC News. Computer virus alters cancer scan images. 2019. Accessed 7. June2019. BBC News. Computer virus alters cancer scan images. 2019. Accessed 7. June2019.
36.
go back to reference Lærum F, et al. Moving equipment, not patients: Mobile, net-based digital radiography to nursing home patients. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1281:922–92.CrossRef Lærum F, et al. Moving equipment, not patients: Mobile, net-based digital radiography to nursing home patients. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1281:922–92.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Pavolini E, Vicarelli G. Is decentralization good for your health? Transformations in the Italian NHS. Curr Sociol. 2012;60(4):472–88.CrossRef Pavolini E, Vicarelli G. Is decentralization good for your health? Transformations in the Italian NHS. Curr Sociol. 2012;60(4):472–88.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Grytten L. -And it’s going to get better!: national strategy for quality improvement in health and social services for leaders and providers. 2005.Oslo: National Directorate for Health and Social Affairs; 2005–2015. Grytten L. -And it’s going to get better!: national strategy for quality improvement in health and social services for leaders and providers. 2005.Oslo: National Directorate for Health and Social Affairs; 2005–2015.
39.
go back to reference Hana J, Rudebeck CE. Leadership in rural medicine: the organization on thin ice? Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011;29(2):122–8.CrossRef Hana J, Rudebeck CE. Leadership in rural medicine: the organization on thin ice? Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011;29(2):122–8.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Lappegard Ø, Hjortdahl P. Acute admissions to a community hospital: Expieriences from Hallingdal Sjukestugu. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(4):309–15.CrossRef Lappegard Ø, Hjortdahl P. Acute admissions to a community hospital: Expieriences from Hallingdal Sjukestugu. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(4):309–15.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. Act on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation.No.36; 2000. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. Act on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation.No.36; 2000.
42.
go back to reference Arrowsmith J, Sisson K. Decentralization in the public sector: the case of UK National Health Service. Ind Relat. 2002;57(2):354–80. Arrowsmith J, Sisson K. Decentralization in the public sector: the case of UK National Health Service. Ind Relat. 2002;57(2):354–80.
43.
go back to reference Davis HTO, Nutley SM, Mannion R. Organisational culture and quality of health care. Qual Health Care. 2000;9:111–9.CrossRef Davis HTO, Nutley SM, Mannion R. Organisational culture and quality of health care. Qual Health Care. 2000;9:111–9.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Ferlie EB, Shortell SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):281–315.CrossRef Ferlie EB, Shortell SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):281–315.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Hawk PB. Teleradiology; friend or foe? What imaging’s now indispenable partner means for radiology’s future and for the quality of care. J Health Care Finance. 2011;37(84):71–92.PubMed Hawk PB. Teleradiology; friend or foe? What imaging’s now indispenable partner means for radiology’s future and for the quality of care. J Health Care Finance. 2011;37(84):71–92.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Experiences from Decentralised Radiological Services in Norway – a rural case study
Authors
Aud Mette Myklebust
Hilde Eide
Brian Ellis
Rona Beattie
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4800-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Health Services Research 1/2019 Go to the issue