Peter Garpenby

The role of national quality registers in the Swedish health service.

This article reports on a quality movement in Sweden that has gone largely unnoticed, namely the national quality control registers. These registers represent a potentially important primary data source for comparative studies and can play an important role in a national strategy for control and improvement of health care quality. First, we review the recent health care quality initiatives in Sweden and the background of national quality control registers. Secondly, we discuss our findings from a study on the purpose, content, value and problems associated with the registers. Our findings are based on (a) interviews with physician managers of the registers, (b) questionnaires to selected hospital departments participating in the registers and (c) questionnaires to elected officials and administrators representing the local health care providers. Finally, we discuss several crucial issues related to the registers. Although some have existed for several years, the registers are still defining their roles. Traditionally, this activity has been managed by the medical profession. However, interest in register information is increasing among health care policy makers and administrators at all levels in the system. Two key issues concern register ownership and finance, but the most sensitive issue concerns the right of policy makers and the public to access register information. The registers and the information they contain illustrate the ongoing conflict between openness and consumer sovereignty in health care on the one hand and professional autonomy on the other.

Resource dependency, doctors and the state: quality control in Sweden

This paper focuses on the interaction between the state and the medical profession on the national level in Sweden with respect to issues concerning quality in health care. Using the concepts of policy network and resource dependency as points of departure, two examples of interorganisational relationships are analysed which relate to medical/professional quality and organisational quality, respectively. These are (1) the control of the national quality registers and (2) the development of third-party accreditation in health care organisations. During the 1990s the state has become increasingly dependent on participation by the profession in order to obtain outcome data and other resources controlled by the profession. In Sweden, a fragmented state has established various types of linkages with the organised medical profession, all of which are characterised by mutual resource dependency.

Implementing quality programmes in three Swedish county councils: the views of politicians, managers and doctors

This articles deals with quality assurance within the Swedish health care system at the regional and local levels. The overriding issue concerns the degree to which changes in Swedish health care in recent years with respect to increased freedom of choice for the individual, the purchaser-provider split and new forms of financial reimbursement have affected quality assurance. Special attention is directed toward the relationship between the political-administrative level in the county councils and the medical profession at the local level. Since political responsibility for health care is strongly decentralized and different organizational solutions can be found, Sweden offers a good opportunity for systematic comparisons within the health care sector. Following an overview of certain national initiatives with regard to the quality of health care, three Swedish county councils are compared. The aim is not to provide a general overview of the situation in Sweden with regard to quality assurance, but to compare the strategies and outcomes in county councils with different organizational configurations. The study is based on 35 interviews conducted in 1995 with health care politicians, health care administrators, hospital directors and clinical department heads. The article concludes that indirect incentives can be very strong factors in affecting care providers active interest in quality assurance. This interest is aroused when providers feel they are in competition in that the number of patients decreases, or in that their activities are being called into question, such as in the form of discussions about possible structural changes in the county council.

To accept, or not to accept, that is the question: citizen reactions to rationing

Backgroundu2002 The publicly financed health service in Sweden has come under increasing pressure, forcing policy makers to consider restrictions.

The Transformation of the Swedish Health Care System, or the Hasty Rejection of the Rational Planning Model

Many countries in Europe facing escalating health care expenditures are introducing competition between providers, a solution presently tried in the British and the Dutch health care systems. In the post-war period Sweden has developed one of the most advanced health care systems in Europe, built on the notion of rational planning, and with a strong element of political control. This article discusses the present reconsideration of health policy issues that is taking place in Sweden.

Health care reform in Sweden in the 1990s: local pluralism versus national coordination.

Because of the poor state of the Swedish economy, publicly provided health care services, like other welfare services, are increasingly vulnerable to possible cutbacks. A growing discontent among the public in the late 1980s paved the way for experiments with new economic incentives among health care providers. Although many parts of the welfare state are being questioned today, the principle of universalism in health care has not been seriously challenged, but support for the present health care system among Swedes depends on how well the system functions. The prospects for implementing major organizational changes in health care through a top-down procedure, however, are limited. The appointment of the Committee on Funding and Organization of Health Care in 1992 by the previous government can be regarded as merely a way to show activity rather than as an instrument to achieve meaningful change.

Political strategies in difficult times - The "backstage" experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare

This paper contributes to the knowledge on the governing of healthcare in a democratic context in times of austerity. Resource allocation in healthcare is a highly political issue but the political nature of healthcare is not always made clear and the role of politicians is often obscure. The absence of politicians in rationing/disinvestment arrangements is usually explained with blame-shifting arguments; they prefer to delegate the burden of responsibility to administrative agencies or professionals. Drawing on a case where Swedish regional politicians involved themselves in setting priorities at a more detailed level than previously, the findings suggest that the subject of blame avoidance is more complicated than usually assumed. A qualitative case study was designed, involving semi-structured interviews with 14 regionally elected politicians in one Swedish health authority, conducted in June 2011. The interviews were analysed through a thematic analysis in accordance with the framework approach by Ritchie and Lewis. Findings show that an overarching strategy among the politicians was to appear united and to suppress conflict, which served to underpin the vital strategy of bringing the medical profession into the process. A key finding is the importance that politicians, when appearing backstage, attach to the prevention of blame from the medical profession. This case illustrates that one has to take into account that priority settings requires various types of skills and knowledges - not only technical but also political and social. Another important lesson points toward the need to broaden the political leadership repertoire, as leadership in the case of priority setting is not about politicians being all in or all out. The results suggest that in a priority-setting process it is of importance to have politics on-board at an early stage to secure loyalty to the process, although not necessarily being involved in all details.

It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing

Previous studies show that citizens usually prefer physicians as decision makers for rationing in health care, while politicians are downgraded. The findings are far from clear-cut due to methodological differences, and as the results are context sensitive they cannot easily be transferred between countries. Drawing on methodological experiences from previous research, this paper aims to identify and describe different ways Swedish citizens understand and experience decision makers for rationing in health care, exclusively on the programme level. We intend to address several challenges that arise when studying citizens views on rationing by (a) using a method that allows for reflection, (b) using the respondents nomination of decision makers, and (c) clearly identifying the rationing level. We used phenomenography, a qualitative method for studying variations and changes in perceiving phenomena. Open-ended interviews were conducted with 14 Swedish citizens selected by standard criteria (e.g. age) and by their attitude towards rationing. The main finding was that respondents viewed politicians as more legitimate decision makers in contrast to the results in most other studies. Interestingly, physicians, politicians, and citizens were all associated with some kind of risk related to self-interest in relation to rationing. A collaborative solution for decision making was preferred where the views of different actors were considered important. The fact that politicians were seen as appropriate decision makers could be explained by several factors: the respondents new insights about necessary trade-offs at the programme level, awareness of the importance of an overview of different health care needs, awareness about self-interest among different categories of decision-makers, including physicians, and the national context of long-term political accountability for health care in Sweden. This study points to the importance of being aware of contextual and methodological issues in relation to research on how citizens experience arrangements for rationing in health care.

Formal priority setting in health care: the Swedish experience

Purpose From the late 1980s and onwards health care in Sweden has come under increasing financial pressure, forcing policy makers to consider restrictions. The purpose of this paper is to review experiences and to establish lessons of formal priority setting in four Swedish regional health authorities during the period 2003-2012. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws on a variety of sources, and evidence is organised according to three broad aspects: design and implementation of models and processes, application of evidence and decision analysis tools and decision making and implementation of decisions. Findings The processes accounted for here have resulted in useful experiences concerning technical arrangements as well as political and public strategies. All four sites used a particular model for priority setting that combined top-down- and bottom-up-driven elements. Although the process was authorised from the top it was clearly bottom-up driven and the template followed a professional rationale. New meeting grounds were introduced between politicians and clinical leaders. Overall a limited group of stakeholders were involved. By defusing political conflicts the likelihood that clinical leaders would regard this undertaking as important increased. Originality/value One tendency today is to unburden regional authorities of the hard decisions by introducing arrangements at national level. This study suggests that regional health authorities, in spite of being politically governed organisations, have the potential to execute a formal priority-setting process. Still, to make priority-setting processes more robust to internal as well as external threat remains a challenge.

The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?

The importance for governments of establishing ethical principles and criteria for priority setting in line with social values, has been emphasised. The risk of such criteria not being operationalised and instead replaced by de-contextualised priority-setting tools, has been noted. The aim of this article was to compare whether citizenś views are in line with how a criterion derived from parliamentary-decided ethical principles have been interpreted into a framework for evaluating severity levels, in resource allocation situations in Sweden. Interviews were conducted with 15 citizens and analysed by directed content analysis. The results showed that the multi-factorial aspects that participants considered as relevant for evaluating severity, were similar to those used by professionals in the Severity Framework, but added some refinements on what to consider when taking these aspects into account. Findings of similarities, such as in our study, could have the potential to strengthen the internal legitimacy among professionals, to use such a priority-setting tool, and enable politicians to communicate the justifiability of how severity is decided. The study also disclosed new aspects regarding severity, of which some are ethically disputed, implying that our results also reveal the need for ongoing ethical discussions in publicly-funded healthcare systems.