IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v53y2001i12p1721-1732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medical audit: threat or opportunity for the medical profession. A comparative study of medical audit among medical specialists in general hospitals in the Netherlands and England, 1970-1999

Author

Listed:
  • Herk, R. van
  • Klazinga, N. S.
  • Schepers, R. M. J.
  • Casparie, A. F.

Abstract

Medical audit has been introduced among hospital specialists in both the Netherlands and England. In the Netherlands following some local experiments, medical audit was promoted nationally as early as 1976 by the medical profession itself and became a mandatory activity under the Hospital Licensing Act of 1984. In England it was the government who promoted medical audit as a compulsory activity for medical specialists, in particular since 1989. In this article the development and introduction of medical audit in the two health care systems is described and its impact on the clinical autonomy of medical specialists gauged. It is concluded that in both countries external pressures seem to have been crucial in the 'compulsory' introduction of medical audit. Although there are differences in the organisation and culture of the medical profession in the two countries, in both countries medical audit turned out to be an instrument 'controlled' by the profession itself. The question whether medical audit is instrumental in preserving clinical autonomy has also been addressed. Our conclusion is that in its present form medical audit in the two countries has not been a threat to the clinical autonomy of the medical profession. At the same time it is clear that the study of one quality instrument is insufficient to draw conclusions about the development of clinical autonomy, let alone autonomy in general. Moreover, it remains to be seen how medical audit can survive alongside quality improvement mechanisms such as accreditation, certification, performance indicators and formal quality systems (ISO, EFQM) where hospital management executes more control. The history of medical audit in the Netherlands and England over the past 30 years does illustrate, however, the capability of the profession to maintain autonomy through re-negotiated mechanisms for self-control.

Suggested Citation

  • Herk, R. van & Klazinga, N. S. & Schepers, R. M. J. & Casparie, A. F., 2001. "Medical audit: threat or opportunity for the medical profession. A comparative study of medical audit among medical specialists in general hospitals in the Netherlands and England, 1970-1999," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(12), pages 1721-1732, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:12:p:1721-1732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00458-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valdez-Martinez, Edith & Trumbull, Bernardo & Garduno-Espinosa, Juan & Porter, John David Henley, 2005. "Understanding the structure and practices of research ethics committees through research and audit: a study from Mexico," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 56-68, September.
    2. Carmeli, Abraham & Zisu, Malka, 2009. "The relational underpinnings of quality internal auditing in medical clinics in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 894-902, March.

    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:53:y:2001:i:12:p:1721-1732. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    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.