IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v16y2021i2p183-200_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining health system responses to public reporting of cardiac surgery mortality in England and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Exworthy, Mark
  • Gabe, Jon
  • Rees Jones, Ian
  • Smith, Glenn

Abstract

Public reporting of clinical performance is increasingly used in many countries to improve quality and enhance accountability of the health system. The assumption is that greater transparency will stimulate improvements by clinicians in response to peer pressure, patient choice or competition. The international diffusion of public reporting might suggest greater similarity between health systems. Alternatively, national and local contexts (including health system imperatives, professional power and organisational culture) might continue to shape its form and impact, implying continued divergence. The paper considers public reporting in the USA and England through the lens of Scott's ‘pillars’ institutional framework. The USA was arguably the first country to adopt public reporting systematically in the late 1980s. England is a more recent adopter; it is now being widely adopted through the National Health Service (NHS). Drawing on qualitative data from California and England, this paper compares the behavioural and policy responses to public reporting by health system stakeholders at micro, meso and macro levels and through the intersection of ideas, interests, institutions and individuals through. The interplay between the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars helps explain the observed patterns of on-going divergence.

Suggested Citation

  • Exworthy, Mark & Gabe, Jon & Rees Jones, Ian & Smith, Glenn, 2021. "Explaining health system responses to public reporting of cardiac surgery mortality in England and the USA," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 183-200, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:183-200_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133120000444/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:hecopl:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:183-200_6. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    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.