Collective Discretionary Room: How Inspectors Decide with Providers and Citizens

Rutz, Suzanne; Bont, Antoinette de

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04058-1_10

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CQC additionally took advantage of a data sharing partnership with other websites collecting intelligence from users that is then used by the regulator. First, the primary espoused reason for involvement is improving regulatory work, and by consequence improving the quality and safety of care (5,16,17,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38). In this view, patients and families are seen as an additional information source.…”

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, involvement can be a way for users to empower themselves and learn new skills (12,17,32,40,41,45). For example, experts-by-experience learn a lot about a specific subject (e.g.…”

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, experts-by-experience learn a lot about a specific subject (e.g. elderly care, alcohol misuse) and the work of the inspectorate (17,40,43).…”

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As participation is time-consuming for all those involved it is important to consider for which situations it is most important to organize participation, and what are the best ways to go about it. The case of using mystery guests with learning disabilities in the Netherlands is a good example in this regard (17,45). The mystery guests were asked to assess the access to municipal services for people with learning disabilities, an assessment which can only be adequately made through experience.…”

Section: Unpacking the Landscape Of User Involvement In Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A case study across four countries

Wiig

Rutz

Boyd

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In healthcare regulation, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patient and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice.Methods The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included if available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.Results Our mapping of involvement methods showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages include: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions.Conclusions Our mapping of user involvement methods found a broad variety of involvement methods. These can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that making involvement in regulation successful is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be valued positively in this regard.

show abstract

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, involvement can be a way for users to empower themselves and learn new skills (12,17,32,40,41,45). For example, experts-by-experience learn a lot about a specific subject (e.g.…”

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, experts-by-experience learn a lot about a specific subject (e.g. elderly care, alcohol misuse) and the work of the inspectorate (17,40,43).…”

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unpacking the Landscape Of User Involvement In Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A case study across four countries

Wiig

Rutz

Boyd

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Collective Proactive Methods Of Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A case study across four countries

Wiig

Rutz

Boyd

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice. Methods: The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.Results: Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions. Conclusions: Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard.

show abstract

Group Styles of Justice or Service: How Ticket Inspectors Manage Contested Citizen Encounters

Friis

2022

Symbolic Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People who interact with citizens in their job often have to use discretion when facing complex situations. Research shows that how people understand their job regulates this use of discretion. Yet, little research has conceptualized how group culture shapes these understandings and discretionary actions in real-life citizen encounters. This article addresses this gap with a microsociological theory of group culture. To demonstrate the merits of this theory, I use a sample of 11 interviews and 88 body-worn camera recordings to analyze how ticket inspectors perceive and act in contested ticket-fining events. The analysis identifies two group styles of moral inspection characterized by tight or loose regulation: justice or service. These styles are associated with the two operating teams in a traffic company and influence how inspectors manage contested events with a risk of escalation. I discuss how these findings contribute to the sociology of culture and enhance the understanding of how group culture shapes discretionary actions in citizen encounters.

show abstract

Collective Discretionary Room: How Inspectors Decide with Providers and Citizens

Cited by 8 publications

References 29 publications

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A case study across four countries

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A case study across four countries

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A case study across four countries

Group Styles of Justice or Service: How Ticket Inspectors Manage Contested Citizen Encounters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About