Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

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

Authors: Renée Bouwman, Manja Bomhoff, Judith D. de Jong, Paul Robben, Roland Friele

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
Francis R. Independent inquiry into care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. January 2005- March 2009, vol. 1. London: The Stationery Office; 2010.
2.
Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.
3.
Prosser T. The Regulatory Enterprise. Government, Regulation and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.CrossRef
4.
Healy J, Braithwaite J. Designing safer health care through responsive regulation. Med J Aust. 2006;184(10):S56–9.PubMed
5.
Health & Social Care Regulatory Forum. Framework for Public & Service User involvement in Health and Social Care Regulation in Ireland. Ireland: Health & Social Care Regulatory Forum; 2009.
6.
Macrae C. Early warnings, weak signals and learning from healthcare disasters. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(6):440–5.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Dixon-Woods M, Baker R, Charles K, Dawson J, Jerzembek G, Martin G, et al. Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(2):106–15.CrossRefPubMed
8.
OECD. Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014.CrossRef
9.
OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2012.
10.
Ayres I, Braithwaite J. Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.
11.
Westerman P. Pyramids and the value of generality. Regulation & Governance. 2013;7:80–94.CrossRef
12.
Braithwaite J, Healy J, Dwan K. The Governance of Health Safety and Quality. Commonwealth of Australia: 2005.
13.
Victoor A, Friele RD, Delnoij DM, Rademakers JJ. Free choice of healthcare providers in the Netherlands is both a goal in itself and a precondition: modelling the policy assumptions underlying the promotion of patient choice through documentary analysis and interviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:441.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Ngo D, den Breejen E, Putters K, Bal R. Supervising the quality of care in changing health care systems. An international comparison. Rotterdam: Department of Healthcare Governance, institute Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Medical Center; 2008.
15.
Rhodes RAW. Understanding governance: ten years on. Organ Stud. 2007;28(8):1243–64.CrossRef
16.
Bal R. De nieuwe zichtbaarheid. Sturing in tijden van marktwerking. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2008.
17.
van de Bovenkamp HM, De Mul M, Quartz JGU, Weggelaar-Jansen AJWM, Bal R. Institutional layering in governing health care quality. Public Adm. 2014;92(1):208–23.CrossRef
18.
Adams SA, van de Bovenkamp H, Robben PB. Including citizens in institutional reviews: expectations and experiences from the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate. Health Expectations 2013, Published online first: 24 September 2013.
19.
Grabosky PN. Discussion paper: Inside the pyramid: Towards a conceptual framework for the analysis of regulatory systems. International Journal of the Sociology of Law. 1997;25:195–201.CrossRef
20.
Grabosky P. Beyond responsive regulation: The expanding role of non-state actors in the regulatory process. Regulation & Governance. 2013;7:114–23.CrossRef
21.
Braithwaite J, Makkai T, Braithwaite VA. Regulating aged care: Ritualism and the new pyramid. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2007.CrossRef
22.
van de Bovenkamp H, Adams S. Doelgericht deelnemen: achtergrondstudie naar burgerparticipatie bij het toezicht. [Targeted participation: background study on citizen participation in regulation.]. Rotterdam: instituut Beleid en Management Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 2012.
23.
Walshe K, Regulating US. Nursing Homes: Are We Learning From Experience? Health Aff. 2001;20(6):128–44.CrossRef
24.
Cabinet Office (UK). Power in Peoples’ Hands: Learning from the World’s Best Public Services. London: Cabinet Office; 2009.
25.
Brabers A, Reitsma M, Friele R. Het beeld van zorggebruikers over de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg. [The image the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate among health care users.]. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2013.
26.
Marketresponse. Imago-onderzoek Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg. [Research of the image of the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate.]. Leusden: Marketresponse; 2011.
27.
Walls J, Pidgeon N, Weyman A, Horlick-Jones T. Critical Trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health, Risk & Society. 2004;6(2):133–50.CrossRef
28.
van Twist MJW, Klijn EH, van der Steen M. Over hijgerigheid en lange adem. Een verkenning van de relatie tussen toezicht en media. [An exploration of the relationship between regulation and the media] Den Haag: WRR; 2013.
29.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Burgers over de kwaliteit van publieke diensten. Een terugblik op 2002–2010. [Citizens about the quality of public services. A look back at 2002 to 2010.]. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau; 2013.
30.
van den Bos K. Vertrouwen in de overheid: wanneer hebben burgers het, wanneer hebben ze het niet, en wanneer weten ze niet of de overheid te vertrouwen is? Een essay over de sociaal-psychologische werking van vertrouwen en de mens als informatievergarend individu. [Trust in the government: when do citizens have trust, when they do not, and when are they unsure whether the government can be trusted? An essay on the social and psychological effects of trust and humans as information gathering individuals.]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht; 2011.
31.
Northcott H, Vanderheyden L, Northcott J, Adair C, McBrien-Morrison C, Norton P, et al. Perceptions of preventable medical errors in Alberta, Canada. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(2):115–22.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Scott C. Regulatory Governance and the Challenge of Constitutionalism. In: Oliver D, Prosser T, Rawlings R, editors. The Regulatory State: Constitutional implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
33.
Selznick P. Focusing Organizational Research on Regulation. In: Noll R, editor. Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985.
34.
Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 2003;23(5):961–72.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Enthoven A, van de Ven W. Going Dutch - Managed-Competition Health Insurance in the Netherlands. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(24):2421–3.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Robben PBM, Bal R, Grol RPTM. Overheidstoezicht door de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg. [Governmental regulation by the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate.] Webpublicatie nr 62. Den Haag: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR); 2012.
37.
De Nationale Ombudsman. Geen gehoor bij de IGZ. [No response of the IGZ.]. Den Haag: De Nationale Ombudsman; 2012.
38.
De Nationale Ombudsman. Onverantwoorde zorg UMCG, Onverantwoord toezicht IGZ. Openbaar rapport over een klacht betreffende het UMCG en de IGZ te Utrecht. [Irresponsible care UMCG, irresponsible supervision IGZ. Public report on a complaint concerning the UMCG and the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate in Utrecht, the Netherlands.]. Den Haag: De Nationale Ombudsman; 2011.
39.
De Nationale Ombudsman. De Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg: een papieren tijger? Onderzoek naar het toezicht van de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg op de zorg voor verstandelijk gehandicapten. [The Dutch Health Care Inspectorate a paper tiger? Research on the supervision of the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate of the care for the mentally handicapped.]. Den Haag: De Nationale Ombudsman; 2009.
40.
Dutch House of Representatives. Report of general discussion, 33149 no. 8, March 16, 2012. Den Haag: Dutch House of Representatives; 2012.
41.
WRR. Toezien op publieke belangen. Naar een verruimd perspectief op rijkstoezicht. [Supervision on public interests. Towards a broader perspective on government supervision.]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2013.
42.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. Voorlopig ontwerp toezicht 2016. [Preliminary design supervision 2016.]. Den Haag: Inspectie van het Onderwijs; 2015.
43.
Mascini P, van Wijk E. Responsive regulation bij de Voedsel en Warenautoriteit. Een empirisch onderzoek naar de theorethische veronderstellingen. [Responsive regulation at the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority. An empirical study to theorethical assumptions. Den Haag: Boom juridische uitgevers; 2009.
44.
45.
Brabers AEM, Reitsma-van Rooijen M, Jong JD. Consumentenpanel Gezondheidszorg: basisrapport met informatie over het panel. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2012.
46.
Raad van State. Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen. [Medical research involving humans Act.]. Den Haag: Raad van State; 1998.
47.
Conover WJ, Iman RL. Rank Transformations as a Bridge Between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics. Am Stat. 1981;35(3):124–9.
48.
Butelli S. Consumer complaint behavior (CCB): a literature review. Newcastle: Northumbria University; 2007.
49.
Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Brodie M, Benson JM, Rosen AB, Schneider E, et al. Patient safety: Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(24):1933–40.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The public’s voice about healthcare quality regulation policies. A population-based survey
Authors
Renée Bouwman
Manja Bomhoff
Judith D. de Jong
Paul Robben
Roland Friele
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0992-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Health Services Research 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Collaboration processes and perceived effectiveness of integrated care projects in primary care: a longitudinal mixed-methods study

Research article

The role of institutions on the effectiveness of malaria treatment in the Ghanaian health sector

Research article

Knowledge of and preferences for health insurance among formal sector employees in Addis Ababa: a qualitative study

Research article

Differences in medical schools’ regional retention of physicians by school type and year of establishment: effect of new schools built under government policy

Research article

Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?

Research article

Preparing general practitioners to receive cancer patients following treatment in secondary care: a qualitative study