'You're just a locum': professional identity and temporary workers in the medical profession.

Internationally, there has been substantial growth in temporary working, including in the medical profession where temporary doctors are known as locums. There is little research into the implications of temporary work in health care. In this paper, we draw upon theories concerning the sociology of the medical profession to examine the implications of locum working for the medical profession, healthcare organisations and patient safety. We focus particularly on the role of organisations in professional governance and the positioning of locums as peripheral to or outside the organisation, and the influence of intergroup relationships (in this case between permanent and locum doctors) on professional identity. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2017 in England with 79 participants including locum doctors, locum agency staff, and representatives of healthcare organisations who use locums. An abductive approach to analysis combined inductive coding with deductive, theory-driven interpretation. Our findings suggest that locums were perceived to be inferior to permanently employed doctors in terms of quality, competency and safety and were often stigmatised, marginalised and excluded. The treatment of locums may have negative implications for collegiality, professional identity, group relations, team functioning and the way organisations deploy and treat locums may have important consequences for patient safety.

National accreditation programmes for hospitals in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Case studies from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: Many countries use external evaluation programmes such as accreditation in order to improve quality and safety in their healthcare settings. Hospital accreditation has developed in many low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs); however, the implementation and sustainability of these programmes vary in each country. This study addresses design and implementation issues of national hospital accreditation programmes. It identifies factors which may explain why programmes can be implemented successfully in one country but not in another and derives lessons for the design and implementation of national accreditation programmes in poor-resource settings. METHODS: A multiple case study design was used, comprising three countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 key stakeholders in the three countries and experts from international organisations concerned with accreditation activities in LMICs. RESULTS: The hospital accreditation programme was successful and sustainable in Jordan but experienced some difficulties in Egypt and Lebanon. The premature end of external funding and devastating political instability after the Arab Spring were problematic for the programmes in Egypt and Lebanon, but continuous funding and strong political will supported the implementation and sustainability of the programme in Jordan. CONCLUSIONS: LMICs striving to improve their hospitals' performance through accreditation programmes should consider their vulnerability to a scarcity of financial resources and political instability. An important factor underpinning sustainability is recognising that the accreditation programme is an ongoing and developing quality improvement process that needs continuing and careful attention from funders and political systems if it is to survive and thrive.

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

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.

Identifying and managing concerns about GPs in England: an interview study and case-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Underperforming doctors have been the focus of sustained interest from the media, policymakers, and researchers. GPs are more likely to be the subject of a complaint than any other type of doctor in the UK, and the management of concerns in primary care needs improvement, yet more is known about how concerns are managed in secondary care. AIM: Although formal policies for NHS England's management of concerns are clear, little is known about how these are put into practice. This study explores how concerns are identified, investigated, and managed at a regional level. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of the management of concerns in primary care across eight area teams. METHOD: The study comprised two main strands: in-depth interviews with NHS England staff; and the analysis of case file data. RESULTS: The process for raising concerns was identified as inconsistent and disparate, with potential weaknesses to address. The concerns process was flexible. A trade-off between adaptability and consistency was evident, but the correct balance of the two is difficult to establish. Performance concerns were most common, followed by behaviour. Conduct was the next most frequently raised concern, and a small number of health cases were identified. Outcomes of cases appeared to be dependent on the doctor's engagement and response rather than necessarily the nature of a concern or the consequences of a doctor's actions. CONCLUSION: The way practices handle complaints and concerns remains unexamined, even though they are a key route for patient complaints.

What benefits will choice bring to patients? Literature review and assessment of implications.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the demand for, and likely impact of, increasing patient choice in health care. The study examined whether patients would like to exercise choice of hospital, primary care provider and treatment, and investigated the likely impact of policies designed to increase choice on equity of access, and on the efficiency and quality of service delivery. METHOD: Theory-based literature review including an analysis of the intended and unintended impact of choice-related policies in health care in the UK, European Union and USA. Selected papers focused not only on offering choice to individual patients but also evidence of the impact of choice by patients' agents such as GPs, and on the impact of introducing choice in education and social services. RESULTS: Choosing between hospitals or primary care providers is not currently a high priority for the public, except where local services are poor, e.g. they have long waiting times and where individual patients' circumstances do not limit their ability to travel. When patients become ill, they are increasingly likely to wish to rely on a trusted health practitioner to choose their treatment. Better educated populations make greater use of information and are more likely to exercise choice in health care. The increase in inequality which this could produce might be reduced by specific provision of information and help, enabling less advantaged populations to make choices about health care. There was little evidence in the literature that providing greater choice will in itself improve efficiency or quality of care. CONCLUSION: Although patients may themselves make limited use of choices, the existence of choice may, in theory, stimulate providers to improve quality of care. Patients do, however, want to be more involved in individual decisions about their own treatment, and generally participate much less in these decisions than they would wish.

Lichen planus

Lichen planus, a papulosquamous disease, in its classical presentation is characterized by pruritic violaceous papules most commonly on the extremities of middle-aged adults. It may or may not be accompanied by oral and genital mucous membrane involvement. Its course is generally self-limited for a period of several months to years, but it may last indefinitely. There are many clinical variants described, ranging from lichenoid drug eruptions to association with other diseases such as diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disease, and the graft-versus-host reaction. The relationship of these, if any, to classical lichen planus is questionable. Multiple therapeutic options exist including corticosteroids, retinoids, griseofulvin, PUVA, and cyclosporine.