<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Robertson, R.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/23468/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Choice policies in Northern European health systems (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32007/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>This paper compares the introduction of policies to promote or strengthen patient choice in four Northern European countries - Denmark, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. The paper examines whether there has been convergence in choice policies across Northern Europe. Following Christopher Pollitt's suggestion, the paper distinguishes between rhetorical (discursive) convergence, decision (design) convergence and implementation (operational) convergence (Pollitt, 2002). This leads to the following research question for the article: Is the introduction of policies to strengthen choice in the four countries characterised by discursive, decision and operational convergence? The paper concludes that there seems to be convergence among these four countries in the overall policy rhetoric about the objectives associated with patient choice, embracing both concepts of empowerment (the intrinsic value) and market competition (the instrumental value). It appears that the institutional context and policy concerns such as waiting times have been important in affecting the timing of the introduction of choice policies and implementation, but less so in the design of choice policies. An analysis of the impact of choice policies is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is concluded that further research should investigate how the institutional context and timing of implementation affect differences in how the choice policy works out in practice. Copyright </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: A comparison of the Netherlands and England (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21128/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-07-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The implementation of choice for patients over where and when they are seen by specialists in hospital outpatient clinics has been supported by electronic referral systems in England and the Netherlands. This paper compares the implementation of Choose and Book in England and ZorgDomein in a region of the Netherlands. For England the analysis draws on national data and published studies on Choose and Book, national patient surveys, and qualitative data based on general practitioner (GP) focus groups. For the Netherlands the analysis draws on qualitative data collected during observational study as well as survey data among patients, GPs and medical specialists. We find that despite significant differences in the genesis and design of the policy, similar challenges have been faced. The electronic referral systems have forced changes to the process of care at the interface between primary and secondary care and standardisation between practices. Although these changes have the potential to generate improvements and benefits, for example, convenience, certainty and choice for patients and efficiency gains through for example reduced do not attend rates, repeat consultations and duplicative diagnostic tests; they have also generated problems during implementation including GP resistance. Policy ambitions for patient choice may not be realised if the implementation of the booking system is not carefully designed and evaluated.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>