IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v96y2013icp52-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discretion or discretions? Delineating professional discretion: The case of English medical practice

Author

Listed:
  • Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh
  • Calnan, Michael

Abstract

There has much debate about the extent to which professional discretion has been challenged by recent organisational changes such as through the new forms of governance associated with the introduction of the principles of the New Public Management (NPM) into health systems and other public sector services. What appears to be missing from these debates is a detailed analysis of the concept of professional discretion itself. This paper attempts to fill this gap by delineating the key concepts of professional discretion evident in the literature and exploring their significance in an empirical study of the influence of the 2004 new general medical services contract (nGMS) and the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a prescriptive pay-for-performance system designed to standardise the quality of care provision in general medical practice in the United Kingdom. The study adopted a longitudinal design using semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs, N = 62) working in the English National Health Service (NHS) between 2007 and 2009. A multi-dimensional conception of discretion was used to explore how GP discretion might have been influenced by contractual changes and in particular, QOF. The findings suggest that through a complex interplay of factors, a post-QOF reduction in GP discretion was identifiable, highlighting different potential sources of constraint such as in the social, organisational and economic dimensions of discretion. The evidence also suggested the emergence of a new form of organisational medical professionalism within general practice characterised by standardisation, bureaucracy and performance management.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh & Calnan, Michael, 2013. "Discretion or discretions? Delineating professional discretion: The case of English medical practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 52-59.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:96:y:2013:i:c:p:52-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613004103
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.011?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. McDonald, Ruth & Checkland, Kath & Harrison, Stephen & Coleman, Anna, 2009. "Rethinking collegiality: Restratification in English general medical practice 2004-2008," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1199-1205, April.
    2. Julia Evetts, 2002. "New Directions in State and International Professional Occupations: Discretionary Decision-making and Acquired Regulation," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 16(2), pages 341-353, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rachel Aleks, 2019. "What Professionals Want: Union and Employer Tactics in Representation Elections of Professional Workers," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 72(3), pages 693-717, May.
    2. Crawford Spence & Chris Carter & Ataur Belal & Javier Husillos & Claire Dambrin & Pablo Archel, 2016. "Tracking habitus across a transnational professional field," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 30(1), pages 3-20, February.
    3. McDonald, Ruth & Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh & Bayes, Sara & Morriss, Richard & Kai, Joe, 2013. "Competing and coexisting logics in the changing field of English general medical practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 47-54.
    4. Julie Janssens & Natascha Van Mechelen, 2017. "Who is to Blame? An Overview of the Factors Contributing to the Non-Take-Up of Social Rights," Working Papers 1708, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    5. Bryce, Marie & Luscombe, Kayleigh & Boyd, Alan & Tazzyman, Abigail & Tredinnick-Rowe, John & Walshe, Kieran & Archer, Julian, 2018. "Policing the profession? Regulatory reform, restratification and the emergence of Responsible Officers as a new locus of power in UK medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 98-105.
    6. Musselin, Christine, 2013. "How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1165-1173.
    7. Armstrong, Natalie & Hilton, Paul, 2014. "Doing diagnosis: Whether and how clinicians use a diagnostic tool of uncertain clinical utility," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 208-214.
    8. Ricardo A. Ayala & Raf Vanderstraeten & Piet Bracke, 2014. "Prompting professional prerogatives: New insights to reopen an old debate about nursing," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 506-513, December.
    9. Tracey L Adams, 2020. "‘This Happens All the Time’: Organizations, Rationalization and Ethical Dilemmas in Engineering," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(6), pages 985-1003, December.
    10. Bernardi, Roberta & Wu, Philip F., 2022. "Online health communities and the patient-doctor relationship: An institutional logics perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    11. McGivern, Gerry & Fischer, Michael D., 2012. "Reactivity and reactions to regulatory transparency in medicine, psychotherapy and counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 289-296.
    12. Drennan, Vari M. & Gabe, Jonathon & Halter, Mary & de Lusignan, Simon & Levenson, Ros, 2017. "Physician associates in primary health care in England: A challenge to professional boundaries?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 9-16.
    13. Eeva Kesküla & Krista Loogma, 2017. "The value of and values in the work of teachers in Estonia," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 31(2), pages 248-264, April.
    14. Sabina Siebert & Stacey Bushfield & Graeme Martin & Brian Howieson, 2018. "Eroding ‘Respectability’: Deprofessionalization Through Organizational Spaces," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 32(2), pages 330-347, April.
    15. Märt Masso, 2013. "Determinants of employee work schedule and method control," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 34(3), pages 451-469, August.

    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:96:y:2013:i:c:p:52-59. 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.