Search results1 – 5 of 5
Waiting lists have been a cause of concern since the inception of the NHS. Many theories have been put forward to explain their existence and there have been many proposals to reduce their length. With the current changes in the NHS and the introduction of the Patient′s Charter has come a renewed emphasis on reducing waiting lists and waiting times. However, analysis of incentives within the new system suggests that waiting lists may be reduced by limiting access rather than by increasing treatment rate. Further, not only GP Fundholding, but also the contractual relationships between District Health Authorities and hospitals may lead to two‐tier systems, with admission priorities based on source of funding rather than clinical urgency. Overall, it is concluded that the NHS Review may result in fewer people obtaining treatment, but with shorter waits for those who do receive treatment.
The last 20 years have seen increasing interest in the use of Delphi in a wide range of health‐care applications. However, this use has been accompanied by attempts to codify and define a “true Delphi”. Many authors take a narrow view of the purpose of Delphi and/or advocate a single prescriptive approach to the conduct of a Delphi study. However, as early as 1975, Linstone and Turoff pointed to the danger of attempting to define Delphi as one would immediately encounter a study that violated that definition. Through critical examination of some of the controversies and misunderstandings that surround Delphi, this paper aims to dispel some of the myths and demonstrates the wide scope and potential of this versatile approach.
The author critizizes the health policy in the highly developed countries which support a sector controlled by hospitals, pharmaceutics industry and health insurrance companies.
The purpose of this paper is to examine how access to health care for (rejected) asylum seekers in an eastern German state is structured and experienced and to consider…
The purpose of this paper is to examine how access to health care for (rejected) asylum seekers in an eastern German state is structured and experienced and to consider the implications for their human rights.
The paper is based on 12 in-depth interviews with rejected black African asylum seekers and also draws on ethnographic research undertaken at a grassroots refugee organisation and asylum homes. The analysis of the interview data are framed by theorisations of “everyday practices” as “tactics” of resistance to an imposed order.
Accomplishing health care access involved a range of structural barriers and humiliating interactions with administrative and health care staff, which had adverse consequences for their health status and were injurious to their human rights and dignity. The study participants used a range of oppositional and discursive tactics in an effort to secure certain (health) outcomes, mediate social relations and resist their domination as asylum seekers.
Further research should focus on the cumulative micro-level effects of asylum policies on health care access and how they create health inequities and violate asylum seekers’ rights and dignity.
Policy priorities should include the provision of human rights education as well as training and support for administrative and health staff.
There is limited qualitative research on the health care experiences of asylum seekers in Germany. This paper makes policy recommendations and identifies areas for further research and human rights advocacy.