Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01027.x Byline: Graham P. Martin (1) Keywords: governmentality; public participation; representation; lay expertise; England Abstract: Abstract Public involvement in healthcare is a prominent policy in countries across the economically developed world. A growing body of academic literature has focused on public participation, often presenting dichotomies between good and bad practice: between initiatives that offer empowerment and those constrained by consumerism, or between those which rely for recruitment on self-selecting members of the public, and those including a more broad-based, statistically representative group. In this paper I discuss the apparent tensions between differing rationales for participation, relating recent discussions about the nature of representation in public involvement to parallel writings about the contribution of laypeople's expertise and experience. In the academic literature, there is, I suggest, a thin line between democratic justifications for involvement, suggesting a representative role for involved publics, and technocratic ideas about the potential 'expert' contributions of particular subgroups of the public. Analysing recent policy documents on participation in healthcare in England, I seek moreover to show how contemporary policy transcends both categories, demanding complex roles of involved publics which invoke various qualities seen as important in governing the interface between state and society. I relate this to social-theoretical perspectives on the relationship between governmental authority and citizens in late-modern society. Author Affiliation: (1)Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham Article note: Address for correspondence: Graham P. Martin, Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, e-mail: graham.martin@nottingham.ac.uk

In this article, we draw on an institutional ethnographic (IE) study of cardiovascular disease prevention in general practice, exploring the work of healthcare professionals who introduce a discussion of risk and preventative medications into consultations with patients. Our aim is to explicate, using IE's theoretical ontology and analytical tools, how troubling patient experiences in this clinical context are coordinated institutionally. We focus our attention on the social organisation of healthcare professionals' knowledge and front‐line practices, highlighting the textual processes through which they overrule patients' concerns and uncertainties about taking preventative medication, such that some patients feel unable to openly discuss their health needs in preventative consultations. We show how healthcare professionals activate knowledge of 'evidence‐based risk reduction' to frame patients' queries as 'barriers' to be overcome. Our analysis points not to deficiencies of healthcare professionals who lack the expertise or inclination to adequately 'share decisions' with patients, but to the ways in which their work is institutionally orientated towards performance measures which will demonstrate to local and national policymakers that they are tackling the 'burden of (cardiovascular) disease'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Care pathways are a prominent feature of efforts to improve healthcare quality, outcomes and accountability, but sociological studies of pathways often find professional resistance to standardisation. This qualitative study examined the adoption and adaptation of a novel pathway as part of a randomised controlled trial in an unusually complex, non-linear field - emergency general surgery - by teams of surgeons and physicians in six theoretically sampled sites in the UK. We find near-universal receptivity to the concept of a pathway as a means of improving peri-operative processes and outcomes, but concern about the impact on appropriate professional judgement. However, this concern translated not into resistance and implementation failure, but into a nuancing of the pathways-as-realised in each site, and their use as a means of enhancing professional decision-making and inter-professional collaboration. We discuss our findings in the context of recent literature on the interplay between managerialism and professionalism in healthcare, and highlight practical and theoretical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]