IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v4y2009i03p283-303_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition and compromise in negotiating the new governance of medical performance: the clinical governance and revalidation policies in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • FENTON, LAURA
  • SALTER, BRIAN

Abstract

This article explores the development of two policies for the governance of medical performance in the UK: the Department of Health's (DH) clinical governance policy and the medical profession's revalidation policy. After discussing the institutional context in which each of these policies emerged, we examine how and why they were constructed. While the clinical governance policy was in large part a swift reaction to high-profile cases of medical misconduct in the late 1990s, revalidation was the profession's response to the politicisation of its self-regulatory apparatus. The profession took notably longer than the DH to piece together its policy as a result of internal disagreements about the role clinical standards should play in the evaluation of a doctor's fitness to practice. Following the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry in late 2004, the government stepped in and eventually introduced legislation that modifies the profession's policy. With clinical governance, the state – via arms-length regulatory organisations – has entered the clinic in new ways, strengthening hierarchy-based forms of governance in the governance of medical performance. However, the success of hierarchical forms of governance is likely to be restricted by the lack of a clear system of sanctioning and the state's reliance on a lengthy chain of command in the National Health Service for the implementation of clinical standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Fenton, Laura & Salter, Brian, 2009. "Competition and compromise in negotiating the new governance of medical performance: the clinical governance and revalidation policies in the UK," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(03), pages 283-303, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:4:y:2009:i:03:p:283-303_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1744133109005027
    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:4:y:2009:i:03:p:283-303_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters). General contact details of provider: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_HEP .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.