Search

Scientific-bureaucratic medicine (SBM) has been the dominant discourse on evidence-based medicine in the English National Health System (NHS). It has being claimed that SBM has led to new forms of medical professionalism with an emphasis on organisational values and the control of autonomy. This paper explores the medical professions' response to SBM, where SBM is manifested in the form of National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Seventy-four face-to-face informal interviews were carried out with clinicians and managers between 2007 and 2009. Three major themes emerged from the analysis each of which was linked to doctors' receptiveness to NICE guidelines implementation. The first emphasised organisational values, which accounted for conditional acceptance of NICE guidelines. The second was proactive professionalism or entrepreneurial professionalism, which was linked to the rejection of NICE guidelines and the emergence of alternative forms of introducing new ideas for the expansion of their clinical practice. The third was related to the prominence of clinical autonomy linked with doctors' resistance to the use of NICE guidelines. It is argued that this evidence does not reflect a significant emergence of new forms of professionalism but the development of multiple occupational identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New medicines represent exciting possibilities to individual patients for improved futures through reduced morbidity, as well as the potential for disappointment where promised outcomes are not forthcoming. For healthcare systems these technologies can enable enhanced effectiveness as well as spiralling costs, depending on value-for-money offered. Amidst uncertainty over efficacy and pricing, institutions such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have been set up to regulate the cost-effectiveness of new products. The increased transparency of this new regulation, combined with inescapable uncertainties, leads to the heightened politicisation of decision-making and an insidious subjectivity beneath a veneer of rational-bureaucracy. This paper develops a theoretical framework for understanding the influence of hope within such contexts. Conceptualised here as ideological, affective and prone to lapsing into trust, hope is considered to shape the lifeworld-background of regulatory decisions and mask uncertainty around effectiveness. These processes challenge regulator legitimacy and effectiveness within polycentric regimes, through the distortion of communication and the manipulation of blame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]