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

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.

Review: Taking care of yourself in later life: a qualitative study into the use of non-prescription medicines by people aged 60+.

The last 40 years have witnessed substantial changes to the experience of later life. Health and life expectancy have improved and the emergence of a putative third age has allowed post-working life to move beyond being a residual social category to become an arena in which later life lifestyles can be constructed. Greater emphasis is now placed on expectations of self-agency and choice. Allied to this is the growing role of consumerism as a way of organizing key aspects of social life. Not only do these changes place increased emphasis on individual responsibility for health, but they also engage individuals in various forms of health consumerism.This study draws on these aspects of contemporary society to provide an explanatory framework for understanding older people's engagement with, and consumption of non-prescription medicines. We present a qualitative study in which we interviewed 22 men and women aged 60 plus who were purchasing or interested in purchasing non-prescription medicines, including complementary and alternative medicines. Our findings suggest that the use of non-prescription medicines is both pluralistic and makeshift. Moreover, while this pluralism led to tensions with conventional bio-medicine, conventional bio-medicine still maintained the legitimacy of its knowledge base. Self-care using non-prescription medicines appeared more governed by hope than by evidence or knowledge of the treatments concerned.We conclude that such pluralism of approach reflects the growing consumerism in health and self-care and that older people may in fact be similar to other age groups in terms of their approach to such commodification.

Learning not to take it seriously: junior doctors' accounts of error.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate experiences of, and responses to, medical error amongst junior doctors and to examine the challenges junior doctors face and the support they receive. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative study of 38 randomly selected pre-registration house officers (PRHOs) in 10 hospitals. All 38 had graduated in 2000 or 2001 from a single medical school. RESULTS: Errors were common and sometimes serious. In relation to disclosure and learning from error, four main themes emerged: a norm of selective disclosure; the effects of the team; individualised blame and responsibility, and the 'learning moment'. Trainees reported disclosing errors informally, particularly when teams were seen as supportive, but were reluctant to criticize colleagues. Formal reports and disclosure to patients were very rare. Patient care was compromised when juniors did not access senior help, often when working outside their usual team environment. Lack of cooperation between teams and poor continuity of care also contributed to errors. Learning was maximised when errors were formally discussed and constructive feedback offered. However, both blame and the prioritization of reassurance over learning and structured feedback appeared to inhibit reflection on the experience of error. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors need help to reflect on their experiences and to recognise where they may have made mistakes, particularly in the contexts of shift-work and fragmented teams. Formal reporting systems alone will not facilitate learning from error. Juniors require individual clinical supervision from seniors with appropriate training. Such expertise may benefit the whole team and the training environment.