IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v203y2018icp43-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between demarcation and discretion: The medical-administrative boundary as a locus of safety in high-volume organisational routines

Author

Listed:
  • Grant, Suzanne
  • Guthrie, Bruce

Abstract

Patient safety is an increasing concern for health systems internationally. The majority of administrative work in UK general practice takes place in the context of organisational routines such as repeat prescribing and test results handling, where high workloads and increased clinician dependency on administrative staff have been identified as an emerging safety issue. Despite this trend, most research to date has focused on the redistribution of the clinical workload between doctors, nurses and allied health professionals within individual care settings. Drawing on Strauss's negotiated order perspective, we examine ethnographically the achievement of safety across the medical-administrative boundary in key high-volume routines in UK general practice. We focus on two main issues. First, GPs engaged in strategies of demarcation by defining receptionist work as routine, unspecialised and dependent upon GP clinical knowledge and oversight as the safety net to deal with complexity and risk. Receptionists consented to this ‘social closure’ when describing their role, thus reinforcing the underlying inter-occupational relationship of medical domination. Second, in everyday practice, GPs and receptionists engaged in informal boundary-blurring to safely accommodate the complexity of everyday high-volume routine work. This comprised additional informal discretionary spaces for receptionist decision-making and action that went beyond the routine safety work formally assigned to them. New restratified intra-occupational hierarchies were also being created between receptionists based on the complexity of the safety work that they were authorised to do at practice level, with specialised roles constituting a new form of administrative ‘professional project’. The article advances negotiated order theory by providing an in-depth examination of the ways in which medical-administrative boundary-making and boundary-blurring constitute distinct modes of safety in high-volume routines. It also provides the basis for further research and safety improvement to maximise team-level understandings of the pivotal role of medical-administrative negotiations in achieving safety and mitigating risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant, Suzanne & Guthrie, Bruce, 2018. "Between demarcation and discretion: The medical-administrative boundary as a locus of safety in high-volume organisational routines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 43-50.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:203:y:2018:i:c:p:43-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618300984
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.03.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arber, Sara & Sawyer, Lucianne, 1985. "The role of the receptionist in general practice: A 'dragon behind the desk'?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 20(9), pages 911-921, January.
    2. Iedema, Rick, 2009. "New approaches to researching patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1701-1704, December.
    3. Powell, Alison E. & Davies, Huw T.O., 2012. "The struggle to improve patient care in the face of professional boundaries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 807-814.
    4. Boreham, N. C. & Shea, C. E. & Mackway-Jones, K., 2000. "Clinical risk and collective competence in the hospital emergency department in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 83-91, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Standing, Holly & Patterson, Rebecca & Dalkin, Sonia & Exley, Catherine & Brittain, Katie, 2020. "A critical exploration of professional jurisdictions and role boundaries in inter-professional end-of-life care in the community," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neuwelt, Pat M. & Kearns, Robin A. & Browne, Annette J., 2015. "The place of receptionists in access to primary care: Challenges in the space between community and consultation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 287-295.
    2. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    3. Helen Anderson & Yvonne Birks & Joy Adamson, 2020. "Exploring the relationship between nursing identity and advanced nursing practice: An ethnographic study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1195-1208, April.
    4. Hooker, Claire & Hor, Suyin & Wyer, Mary & Gilbert, Gwendolyn L. & Jorm, Christine & Iedema, Rick, 2020. "Trajectories of hospital infection control: Using non-representational theory to understand and improve infection prevention and control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    5. Nicolini, Davide & Waring, Justin & Mengis, Jeanne, 2011. "Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: Mind the gap," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 217-225, July.
    6. Liberati, Elisa Giulia & Gorli, Mara & Scaratti, Giuseppe, 2016. "Invisible walls within multidisciplinary teams: Disciplinary boundaries and their effects on integrated care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 31-39.
    7. Idun Røseth & Halvor Austenå & Eva Sommerseth & Bente Dahl & Anne Lyberg & Rob Bongaardt, 2020. "Fluid Boundaries and Moving Targets: Midwife Leaders’ Perspectives on Continuing Professional Education," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, June.
    8. Glimmerveen, Ludo & Ybema, Sierk & Nies, Henk, 2018. "Empowering citizens or mining resources? The contested domain of citizen engagement in professional care services," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Smith, Sarah A., 2016. "Migrant encounters in the clinic: Bureaucratic, biomedical, and community influences on patient interactions with front-line workers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 49-56.
    10. Eirin Sigurdssøn Ludvigsen & Øystein Øygarden Flæten & Caryl L Gay & Magnus TarAngen & Tove Irene Granheim & Anners Lerdal, 2016. "Pain and concomitant symptoms in medical and elective surgical inpatients: a point prevalence survey," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(21-22), pages 3229-3240, November.
    11. Vredenburg, Jessica & Bell, Simon J., 2014. "Variability in health care services: the role of service employee flexibility," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 168-178.
    12. Franzén, Cecilia & Nilsson, Eva-Lotta & Norberg, Johan R. & Peterson, Tomas, 2020. "Trust as an analytical concept for the study of welfare programmes to reduce child health disparities: The case of a Swedish postnatal home visiting programme," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Standing, Holly & Patterson, Rebecca & Dalkin, Sonia & Exley, Catherine & Brittain, Katie, 2020. "A critical exploration of professional jurisdictions and role boundaries in inter-professional end-of-life care in the community," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    14. Ward, Jenna & McMurray, Robert, 2011. "The unspoken work of general practitioner receptionists: A re-examination of emotion management in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1583-1587, May.
    15. Battin, Gudrun Songøygard & Romsland, Grace Inga & Christiansen, Bjørg, 2021. "The puzzle of therapeutic emplotment: creating a shared clinical plot through interprofessional interaction in biopsychosocial pain rehabilitation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    16. Prentice, Rachel, 2018. "How surgery became a global public health issue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 17-23.
    17. Croft, Charlotte & Currie, Graeme, 2020. "Realizing policy aspirations of voluntary sector involvement in integrated care provision: Insights from the English National Health Service," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(5), pages 549-555.
    18. McDougall, A. & Goldszmidt, M. & Kinsella, E.A. & Smith, S. & Lingard, L., 2016. "Collaboration and entanglement: An actor-network theory analysis of team-based intraprofessional care for patients with advanced heart failure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 108-117.
    19. Xyrichis, Andreas & Lowton, Karen & Rafferty, Anne Marie, 2017. "Accomplishing professional jurisdiction in intensive care: An ethnographic study of three units," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 102-111.
    20. Sudbury-Riley, Lynn & Hunter-Jones, Philippa, 2021. "Facilitating inter-professional integration in palliative care: A service ecosystem perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:203:y:2018:i:c:p:43-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.