External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders' views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to gain knowledge about how external inspections following serious incidents are played out in a Norwegian hospital context from the perspective of the inspectors, and whether stakeholders' views are involved in the inspection. METHODS: Based on a qualitative mixed methods design, 10 government bureaucrats and inspectors situated at the National Board of Health Supervision and three County Governors in Norway, were strategically recruited, and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key official government documents were selected, collected, and thematically analyzed along with the interview data. RESULTS: Our findings overall demonstrate two overarching themes: Theme (1) Perspectives on different external inspection approaches of responding and involving stakeholders in external inspection following serious incidents, Theme (2) Inspectors' internal work practices versus external expectations. Documents and all participants reported a development towards new approaches in external inspection, with more policies and regulatory attention to sensible involvement of stakeholders. Involvement and interaction with patients and informal caregivers could potentially inform the case complexity and the inspector's decision-making process. However, stakeholder involvement was sometimes complex and challenging due to e.g., difficult communication and interaction with patients and/or informal caregivers, due to resource demands and/or the inspector's lack of experience and/or relevant competence, different perceptions of the principle of sound professional practice, quality, and safety. The inspectors considered balancing the formal objectives and expectations, with the expectations of the public and different stakeholders (i.e. hospitals, patients and/or informal caregivers) a challenging part of their job. This balance was seen as an important part of the continuous development of ensuring public trust and legitimacy in external inspection processes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study suggests that the regulatory system of external inspection and its available approaches of responding to a serious incident in the Norwegian setting is currently not designed to accommodate the complexity of needs from stakeholders at the levels of hospital organizations, patients, and informal caregivers altogether. Further studies should direct attention to how the wider system of accountability structures may support the internal work practices in the regulatory system, to better algin its formal objectives with expectations of the public.

An assessment of public experiences and expectations with physicians: a cross sectional study from Karachi, Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Although physicians are highly regarded members of society, patients are not always satisfied with their care, suggesting a mismatch between the public's expectations and reality. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the public's expectations regarding roles and responsibilities of a physician, to assess patient experiences, and to evaluate factors associated with the two outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted via face-to-face structured interviews from July 14th to August 2nd, 2023, in Karachi, Pakistan. The study sample comprised 424 consenting adults enrolled by visiting public spaces (malls, parks, hospitals, and residential areas). A modified version of 'Exceptionally Good Doctor Likert scale', and 'Patient Picker-15' (PPE-15) questionnaires was used. The Likert and PPE-15 sections were scored through pre-decided criteria for expectations and experience, respectively, and categorized using a median cut-off into high and low expectations and negative and positive experiences, respectively for simple and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A median score of 30.5/ 34 (IQR = 3.3) was found for expectations and 4/ 14 (IQR = 4) for experiences. Significant factors associated with expectations were older age groups (OR = 4.54 [1.18-17.50]) and higher monthly household incomes (0.40 [0.20-0.79]), while the odds of negative experiences were lower after visits to emergency departments (0.38 [0.18-0.84]) and private health care centers (0.31 [0.13-0.70]). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the public has high expectations from physicians, however their experiences are not always positive. Initiatives to develop a patient-centric ethos are needed for which we outline recommendations to both the public and physicians, respectively.

Matters of fact and politics: Generating expectations of cancer screening.

Many countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have established national screening programs in the effort to advance the early diagnosis of cancers. Australia has population screening programs for breast, bowel and cervical cancers, and this article focuses on breast and cervical cancer screening as the two longest running programs in Australia. While these screening programs are well-established and report relatively high participation rates, the effectiveness of population screening is a contested issue, subject to significant, ongoing debate about its purported benefits (Armstrong, 2019). In this article, we draw on ideas from sociology of science on the construction of scientific facts to analyse how evidentiary claims are presented in policy documents for Australia's breast and cervical cancer screening programs, and the implications for those who are the targets of screening. We explore how screening-related information assumes the status of scientific 'facts', and argue that presenting information as neutral and objective obscures the political choices involved in its generation. Importantly, some of the claims presented in the policy documents have a tendency to emphasise the benefits, and minimise the risks and harms of population-based screening. In doing so, we suggest that the current national policies may be contributing to sustaining expectations of screening that are higher than warranted. Higher expectations may bring with them unintended societal and economic costs to the public. We conclude by noting how deeply ingrained socio-cultural meanings of cancer shape public expectations of the protective value of screening, which allows current screening approaches to become further entrenched and resistant to challenge.

Public Expectations of Hospitals to Provide Resources and Services to the Uninjured During Disasters: A Qualitative Study.

Hospitals are perceived as stable sources of support and assistance for the community during disasters. Expectations may outstrip hospital plans or ability to provide for the public. The purpose of this project was to explore racial disparities found in prior research and general perceptions related to the public's expectations of hospitals during disasters. Qualitative interviews were conducted with members of the general public. Content analysis was used to analyze the data and identify themes that describe racial differences related to public expectations of hospitals. A total of 28 interviews were conducted. Half of the participants (n = 14) were black, 57% (n = 16) female, with a mean age of 49 years. No racial differences in terms of the general public's expectations of hospitals were identified. Participants believed that hospitals have a service role and responsibility during disaster response to provide both tangible and intangible supplies and resources to the uninjured public. Hospitals were perceived as able to provide these resources, in terms of having sufficient funds and supplies to share with the uninjured public. In addition, hospitals are perceived as being caring organizations that have compassion toward the public and thus as welcoming places to seek assistance following a disaster. Hospitals need to be prepared to manage the general public's expectations both before and during disasters.

Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study.

OBJECTIVES: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) panels have expanded to include conditions for which treatment effects are less certain, creating debate about population-based screening criteria. We investigated Canadian public expectations and values regarding the types of conditions that should be included in NBS and whether parents should provide consent. METHODS: Eight focus groups (FG; n = 60) included education, deliberative discussion and pre-/post-questionnaires. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: Quantitatively, the majority supported NBS for serious disorders for which treatment is not available (95-98, 82%). A majority endorsed screening without explicit consent (77-88%) for treatable disorders, but 62% supported unpressured choice for screening for untreatable disorders. Qualitatively, participants valued treatment-related benefits for infants and informational benefits for families. Concern for anxiety, stigma and unwanted knowledge depended upon disease context and strength of countervailing benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipated benefits of expanded infant screening were prioritized over harms, with information provision perceived as a mechanism for mitigating harms and enabling choice. However, we urge caution around the potential for public enthusiasm to foster unlimited uptake of infant screening technologies.

Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit.

BACKGROUND: Responsiveness to citizens as users of technological innovation helps motivate translational research and commercial engagement among academics. Yet, retaining citizen trust and support for research encourages caution in pursuit of commercial science. OBJECTIVES: We explore citizen expectations of the specifically academic nature of commercial science [i.e. academic entrepreneurship (AE)] and the influence of conflict of interest concerns, hopes about practical benefits and general beliefs. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional national opinion survey of 1002 Canadians online in 2010. RESULTS: Approval of AE was moderate (mean 3.2/5, SD 0.84), but varied by entrepreneurial activity. Concern about conflict of interests (COI) was moderate (mean 2.9/5, SD 0.86) and varied by type of concern. An ordinary least-squares regression showed that expectations of practical benefits informed support for AE, specifically that academic-industry collaboration can better address real-world problems; conflict of interest concerns were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that citizens support AE for its potential to produce practical benefits, but enthusiasm varies and is reduced for activities that may prioritize private over public interests. Further, support exists despite concern about COI, perhaps due to trust in the academic research context. For user engagement in research priority setting, these findings suggest the need to attend to the commercial nature of translational science. For research policy, they suggest the need for governance arrangements for responsible innovation, which can sustain public trust in academic research, and realize the practical benefits that inform public support for AE.