Author:

Keywords:

Science & Technology, Social Sciences, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Public, Environmental & Occupational Health, Social Sciences, Biomedical, Biomedical Social Sciences, medical audit, clinical autonomy, self-regulation, England, The Netherlands, AUTONOMY, Government Programs, Health Planning Guidelines, Humans, Medical Audit, Netherlands, Quality of Health Care, 11 Medical and Health Sciences, 14 Economics, 16 Studies in Human Society, Public Health, 38 Economics, 42 Health sciences, 44 Human society

Abstract:

Medical audit has been introduced among hospital specialists in both the Netherlands and England. In the Netherlands following some local experiments, medical audit was promoted nationally as early as 1976 by the medical profession itself and became a mandatory activity under the Hospital Licensing Act of 1984. In England it was the government who promoted medical audit as a compulsory activity for medical specialists, in particular since 1989. In this article the development and introduction of medical audit in the two health care systems is described and its impact on the clinical autonomy of medical specialists gauged. It is concluded that in both countries external pressures seem to have been crucial in the 'compulsory' introduction of medical audit. Although there are differences in the organisation and culture of the medical profession in the two countries, in both countries medical audit turned out to be an instrument 'controlled' by the profession itself. The question whether medical audit is instrumental in preserving clinical autonomy has also been addressed. Our conclusion is that in its present form medical audit in the two countries has not been a threat to the clinical autonomy of the medical profession. At the same time it is clear that the study of one quality instrument is insufficient to draw conclusions about the development of clinical autonomy, let alone autonomy in general. Moreover, it remains to be seen how medical audit can survive alongside quality improvement mechanisms such as accreditation, certification, performance indicators and formal quality systems (ISO, EFQM) where hospital management executes more control. The history of medical audit in the Netherlands and England over the past 30 years does illustrate, however, the capability of the profession to maintain autonomy through re-negotiated mechanisms for self-control.