The role of performance indicators in changing the autonomy of the general practice profession in the UK
Performance indicators (PIs) are widely used across the UK public sector, but they have only recently been applied to clinical care. In doing so, they challenge a previously guarded aspect of clinical autonomy--the assessment of work performance. This "challenge" is specific to a primary care setting and in the general practice profession. This paper reviews the qualitative findings from an empirical study within one English primary care group on the response to a set of clinical PIs relating to general practitioners (GPs) in terms of the effect upon their clinical autonomy. Prior to interviews with GPs, primary care teams received feedback on their clinical performance as judged by indicators. Five themes were crucial in understanding GPs responses: the credibility of PIs, the growing need to demonstrate competence, perceptions of autonomy, the ulterior purpose of PIs, and the identity of the assessor of their performance. PIs are playing a key role in changing the locus of performance assessment along two dimensions: location and expertise. As the locus helps to determine the nature of clinical autonomy, it is likely to have implications for the nature of the general practice profession.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 7 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1493-1504. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.