Search results
11 – 20 of 79Carolyn Steele Gray, Dominique Gagnon, Nick Guldemond and Timothy Kenealy
Russell Mannion, Huw Davies, Martin Powell, John Blenkinsopp, Ross Millar, Jean McHale and Nick Snowden
The purpose of this paper is to explore whether official inquiries are an effective method for holding the medical profession to account for failings in the quality and safety of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore whether official inquiries are an effective method for holding the medical profession to account for failings in the quality and safety of care.
Design/methodology/approach
Through a review of the theoretical literature on professions and documentary analysis of key public inquiry documents and reports in the UK National Health Service (NHS) the authors examine how the misconduct of doctors can be understood using the metaphor of professional wrongdoing as a product of bad apples, bad barrels or bad cellars.
Findings
The wrongdoing literature tends to present an uncritical assumption of increasing sophistication in analysis, as the focus moves from bad apples (individuals) to bad barrels (organisations) and more latterly to bad cellars (the wider system). This evolution in thinking about wrongdoing is also visible in public inquiries, as analysis and recommendations increasingly tend to emphasise cultural and systematic issues. Yet, while organisational and systemic factors are undoubtedly important, there is a need to keep in sight the role of individuals, for two key reasons. First, there is growing evidence that a small number of doctors may be disproportionately responsible for large numbers of complaints and concerns. Second, there is a risk that the role of individual professionals in drawing attention to wrongdoing is being neglected.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge this is the first theoretical and empirical study specifically exploring the role of NHS inquiries in holding the medical profession to account for failings in professional practice.
Details
Keywords
Matthew R. Johnson, Nick J. Wagner and Jonathan Reusch
The purpose of this paper is to analyze author and methodological characteristics in top-tier publications in higher education. As the importance of research in the professoriate…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyze author and methodological characteristics in top-tier publications in higher education. As the importance of research in the professoriate continues to grow and faculty face ratcheted-up expectations for prestige in their research, such data are important contextually and historically.
Design/methodology/approach
This descriptive study examines 587 articles within four top-tier higher education research journals from 2008 to 2012. Data were open coded and analyzed with a research team, resulting in an intercoder reliability of 0.96.
Findings
Results show most authors are assistant professors, overwhelmingly received PhD’s from very high research institutions (Carnegie classification), and currently work in similar institutions. Five degree-granting institutions accounted for 29.0 percent of publications in top-tier journals. Additionally, quantitative research accounted for 60.6 percent of published articles, with regression as the most commonly used analytic technique (34.7 percent).
Research limitations/implications
This study examined only higher education faculty and institutions based in the USA as well as first authors.
Practical implications
These results are meant to provide baseline data for top-tier journals within higher education and might inform conversations about methodological acceptability, respectability of qualitative research, graduate education research requirements, journal editor trainings, and tenure and promotion criteria.
Originality/value
This paper provides an update to previous studies that examined publications in higher education within the last three decades. In addition, this study examines author characteristics, which previous studies have mostly excluded. This study offers empirical data to inform conversations about the state of research in top-tier publications within higher education.
Details
Keywords
Nick Walraven and Peter J. Barry
This paper reviews the prevalence of the use of risk ratings by commercial banks that participated in the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers between 1997…
Abstract
This paper reviews the prevalence of the use of risk ratings by commercial banks that participated in the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers between 1997 and 2002. Adoption of risk rating procedures held about steady over the period, with a little less than half the banks on the panel either not using a risk rating system, or reporting the same rating for all their loans in the survey. However, most of these banks were small, and roughly four‐fifths of all sample loans carried an informative risk rating. After controlling for the size and performance of the bank and as many nonprice terms of the loan as possible, findings reveal that banks consistently charged higher rates of interest for the farm loans they characterized as riskier, with an average difference in rates between the most risky and least risky loans of about 1 and a half percentage points.
Details
Keywords
Bob Erens, Gerald Wistow, Nicholas Mays, Tommaso Manacorda, Nick Douglas, Sandra Mounier-Jack and Mary Alison Durand
All areas in England are expected by National Health Service (NHS) England to develop integrated care systems (ICSs) by April 2021. ICSs bring together primary, secondary and…
Abstract
Purpose
All areas in England are expected by National Health Service (NHS) England to develop integrated care systems (ICSs) by April 2021. ICSs bring together primary, secondary and community health services, and involve local authorities and the voluntary sector. ICSs build on previous pilots, including the Integrated Care Pioneers in 25 areas from November 2013 to March 2018. This analysis tracks the Pioneers’ self-reported progress, and the facilitators and barriers to improve service coordination over three years, longer than previous evaluations in England. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
Annual online key informant (KI) surveys, 2016–2018, are used for this study.
Findings
By the fourth year of the programme (2017), KIs had shifted from reporting plans to implementation of a wide range of initiatives. In 2018, informants reported fewer “significant” barriers to change than previously. While some progress in achieving local integration objectives was evident, it was also clear that progress can take considerable time. In parallel, there appears to have been a move away from aspects of personalised care associated with user control, perhaps in part because the emphasis of national objectives has shifted towards establishing large-scale ICSs with a particular focus on organisational fragmentation within the NHS.
Research limitations/implications
Because these are self-reports of changes, they cannot be objectively verified. Later stages of the evaluation will look at changes in outcomes and user experiences.
Originality/value
The current study shows clearly that the benefits of integrating health and social care are unlikely to be apparent for several years, and expectations of policy makers to see rapid improvements in care and outcomes are likely to be unrealistic.
Details
Keywords