4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      You're only a receptionist, what do you want to know for?”: Street-level bureaucracy on the front line of primary care in the United Kingdom

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          In care settings across the globe non-clinical staff are involved in filtering patients to the most appropriate source of care. This includes primary care where general practice receptionists are key in facilitating access to individual surgeries and the wider National Health Service. Despite the complexity and significance of their role little is known of how the decision-making behaviors of receptionists impact policy implementation and service delivery. By combining the agent-based implementation theory of street-level bureaucracy with a tri-level analytical framework this work acknowledges the impact of the decisions made by receptionists as street-level bureaucrats and demonstrates the benefits of using the novel framework to provide practical insight of the factors influencing those decisions.

          Methods

          A secondary analysis of qualitative data gathered from a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with 19 receptionists in the United Kingdom in 2019 was used to populate a tri-level framework: the micro-level relates to influences on decision making acting at an individual level, the meso-level influences at group and organizational levels, and the macro–level influences at a societal or policy level.

          Results

          At the micro-level we determined how receptionists are influenced by the level of rapport developed with patients and would use common sense to interpret urgency. At the meso-level, influences included their position at the forefront of premises, the culture of the workplace, and the processes and protocols used by their practice. At the macro-level, participants described the impact of limited health service capacity, the lack of mandatory training, and the growth in the use of digital technologies.

          Conclusions

          Street-level bureaucracy, complemented with a tri-level contextual analysis, is a useful theoretical framework to understand how health workers, such as receptionists, attempt to provide universality without sufficient resource, and could potentially be applied to other kinds of public service workers in this way. This theoretical framework also benefits from being an accessible foundation on which to base practice and policy changes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sample size in qualitative research.

          A common misconception about sampling in qualitative research is that numbers are unimportant in ensuring the adequacy of a sampling strategy. Yet, simple sizes may be too small to support claims of having achieved either informational redundancy or theoretical saturation, or too large to permit the deep, case-oriented analysis that is the raison-d'être of qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be put, the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed, and the research product intended.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluating screening approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma in a cohort of HCV related cirrhosis patients from the Veteran’s Affairs Health Care System

              Background Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has limited treatment options in patients with advanced stage disease and early detection of HCC through surveillance programs is a key component towards reducing mortality. The current practice guidelines recommend that high-risk cirrhosis patients are screened every six months with ultrasonography but these are done in local hospitals with variable quality leading to disagreement about the benefit of HCC surveillance. The well-established diagnostic biomarker α-Fetoprotein (AFP) is used widely in screening but the reported performance varies widely across studies. We evaluate two biomarker screening approaches, a six-month risk prediction model and a parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) algorithm, in terms of their ability to improve the likelihood of early detection of HCC compared to current AFP alone when applied prospectively in a future study. Methods We used electronic medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs Hepatitis C Clinical Case Registry to construct our analysis cohort, which consists of serial AFP tests in 11,222 cirrhosis control patients and 902 HCC cases prior to their HCC diagnosis. The six-month risk prediction model incorporates routinely measured laboratory tests, age, the rate of change in AFP over the past year with the current AFP. The PEB algorithm incorporates prior AFP screening values to identify patients with a significant elevated level of AFP at their current screen. We split the analysis cohort into independent training and validation datasets. All model fitting and parameter estimation was performed using the training data and the algorithm performance was assessed by applying each approach to patients in the validation dataset. Results When the screening-level false positive rate was set at 10%, the patient-level true positive rate using current AFP alone was 53.88% while the patient-level true positive rate for the six-month risk prediction model was 58.09% (4.21% increase) and PEB approach was 63.64% (9.76% increase). Both screening approaches identify a greater proportion of HCC cases earlier than using AFP alone. Conclusions The two approaches show greater potential to improve early detection of HCC compared to using the current AFP only and are worthy of further study. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0458-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Heliyon
                Heliyon
                Heliyon
                Elsevier
                2405-8440
                13 November 2023
                November 2023
                13 November 2023
                : 9
                : 11
                : e21298
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [b ]Health Services Management Centre, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, UK
                [c ]Department of Forensic Psychology, School for Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, UK
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. I.Litchfield@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Article
                S2405-8440(23)08506-7 e21298
                10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21298
                10694055
                38053872
                219e8f9d-f9e9-43e9-b229-a71745b4a03c
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 10 September 2023
                : 9 October 2023
                : 19 October 2023
                Categories
                Research Article

                street-level bureaucracy,health services research,primary care,general practice

                Comments

                Comment on this article