IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v59y2004i1p93-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Ian Rees
  • Berney, Lee
  • Kelly, Moira
  • Doyal, Len
  • Griffiths, Chris
  • Feder, Gene
  • Hillier, Sheila
  • Rowlands, Gillian
  • Curtis, Sarah

Abstract

Greater patient involvement has become a key goal of health care provision. This study explored the way in which general practitioners (GPs) in the UK manage the dual responsibilities of treating individual patients and making the most equitable use of National Health Service (NHS) resources in the context of the policy of greater patient involvement in decision-making. We undertook a qualitative study incorporating a series of interviews and focus groups with a sample of 24Â GPs. We analysed GP accounts of decision-making by relating these to substantive ethical principles and the key procedural principle of explicitness in decision-making. GPs saw patient involvement in positive terms but for some GPs involvement served an instrumental purpose, for instance improving patient 'compliance'. GPs identified strongly with the role of patient advocate but experienced role tensions particularly with respect to wider responsibilities for budgets, populations, and society in general. GPs had an implicit understanding of the key ethical principle of explicitness and of other substantive ethical principles but there was incongruence between these and their interpretation in practice. Limited availability of GP time played an important role in this theory/practice gap. GPs engaged in implicit categorisation of patients, legitimating this process by reference to the diversity and complexity of general practice. If patient involvement in health care decision-making is to be increased, then questions of scarcity of resources, including time, will need to be taken into account. If strategies for greater patient involvement are to be pursued then this will have significant implications for funding primary care, particularly in terms of addressing the demands made on consultation time. Good ethics and good professional practice cost money and must be budgeted for. More explicit decision-making in primary care will need to be accompanied by greater explicitness at the national level about roles and responsibilities. Increased patient involvement has consequences for GP training and ways of addressing rationing dilemmas will need to be an important part of this training. Further research is needed to understand micro-decision-making, in particular the spaces in which processes of implicit categorisation lead to distorted communication between doctor and patient.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Ian Rees & Berney, Lee & Kelly, Moira & Doyal, Len & Griffiths, Chris & Feder, Gene & Hillier, Sheila & Rowlands, Gillian & Curtis, Sarah, 2004. "Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 93-102, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:1:p:93-102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00543-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Clark, Michael & Moro, Domenico & Szczepura, Ala, 2009. "Balancing patient preferences and clinical needs: Community versus hospital based care for patients with suspected DVT," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(2-3), pages 313-319, May.
    2. Lessard, Chantale & Contandriopoulos, André-Pierre & Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique, 2010. "The role (or not) of economic evaluation at the micro level: Can Bourdieu's theory provide a way forward for clinical decision-making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1948-1956, June.
    3. Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2007. "The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1297-1310, March.
    4. Russell, Jill & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2012. "Affordability as a discursive accomplishment in a changing National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2463-2471.
    5. Jane Robertson & Emily J Walkom & David A Henry, 2011. "Health Systems and Sustainability: Doctors and Consumers Differ on Threats and Solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-9, April.
    6. Romppainen, Katri & Jähi, Rita & Saloniemi, Antti & Virtanen, Pekka, 2010. "Encounters with unemployment in occupational health care: Nurses' constructions of clients without work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 605-608, February.
    7. Fumagalli, Lia Paola & Radaelli, Giovanni & Lettieri, Emanuele & Bertele’, Paolo & Masella, Cristina, 2015. "Patient Empowerment and its neighbours: Clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 384-394.
    8. Llanwarne, Nadia & Newbould, Jennifer & Burt, Jenni & Campbell, John L. & Roland, Martin, 2017. "Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 113-122.
    9. Owen-Smith, Amanda & Donovan, Jenny & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "How clinical rationing works in practice: A case study of morbid obesity surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 288-295.
    10. Jolanki, Outi & Tynkkynen, Liina-Kaisa, 2018. "Primary health care nurses’ views on patients’ abilities and resources to make choices and take decisions on health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(9), pages 957-962.

    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:59:y:2004:i:1:p:93-102. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.