Background:There is little research comparing clinicians’ and managers’ views on priority settings in the healthcare services. During research on two different qualitative research projects on healthcare prioritisations, we found a striking difference on how hospital executive managers and clinical healthcare professionals talked about and understood prioritisations.Aim:The purpose of this study is to explore how healthcare professionals in mental healthcare and somatic medicine prioritise their care, to compare different ways of setting priorities among managers and clinicians and to explore how moral (...) dilemmas are balanced and reconciled.Research design and participants:We conducted qualitative observations, interviews and focus groups with medical doctors, nurses and other clinical members of the interdisciplinary team in both somatic medical and mental health wards in hospitals in Norway. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.Ethical considerations:Basic ethical principles for research ethics were followed. The respondents signed an informed consent for participation. They were assured anonymity and confidentiality. The studies were approved by relevant ethics committees in line with the Helsinki Convention.Findings:Our findings showed a widening gap between the views of clinicians on one hand and managers on the other. Clinicians experienced a threat to their autonomy, to their professional ideals and to their desire to perform their job in a professional way. Prioritisations were a cause of constant concern and problematic decisions. Even though several managers understood and empathised with the clinicians, the ideals of patient flow and keeping budgets balanced were perceived as more important.Discussion:We discuss our findings in light of the moral challenges of patient-centred individual healthcare versus demands of distributive justice from healthcare management.Conclusion:The clinicians’ ideals of autonomy and good medical and nursing care for the individual patients were perceived as endangered. (shrink)

We have examined healthcare staff attitudes of toward a blogging cancer patient who publishes critical posts about her treatment and their possible effect on patient-staff relationships and treatment decisions. We used two versions of a questionnaire containing a vignette based on a modified real case involving a 39-year-old cancer patient who complained on her blog about how she was encountered and the treatment she received. Initially she was not offered a new, and expensive treatment, which might have influenced her perception (...) of further encounters. In one version of the vignette, the team decides to put extra effort into both encounters and offers the expensive new cancer treatment. In the other version, the team decides to follow the clinic’s routine to the letter. Subsequently, blog postings became either positive or negative in tone. We also divided participants into value-neutral and value-influenced groups by asking how their trust in healthcare would be affected if the team’s suggestion were followed. A total of 56 % of the respondents faced with a team decision to ‘do something-extra’ in encounters would act in accordance with this ambition. Concerning treatment, 32 % would follow the team’s decision to offer a new and expensive treatment. A large majority of those who received the “follow-routine” version agreed to do so in encountering [94 % ]. Similar proportions were found regarding treatment [86 % ]. A total of 83 % of the value-neutral participants who received the “do-something-extra” version stated that they would act as the team suggested regarding encounters, while 57 % would do so in regard to treatment. Among the value-influenced participants who received the “do-something-extra” version, 45 % stated that they would make an extra effort to accommodate the patient and her needs, while the proportion for treatment was 22 %. Among those who had received the “follow-routine” version, a large majority agreed, and no difference was indicated between the value-neutral and the value-influenced participants. The present study indicates that healthcare staff is indeed influenced by reading a patient’s critical blog entries, largely regarding encounters, but also concerning treatment is concerned. Value-neutral healthcare personnel seem to exhibit a pragmatic attitude and be more inclined to heed and respond to a patient whose criticism may well be warranted. The study also indicates that healthcare staff is partly positive or negative to future blogging patients depending on how the issue has been framed. For future research we suggest as a bold hypothesis that the phrase “clinical routine” might conceal power aspects masquerading as adopted ethical principles. (shrink)