Search results

Seeks to identify physicians' perceptions of possibilities and obstacles prior to implementing a computerised drug prescribing support system. Details a descriptive, qualitative study, with semi‐structured individual interviews of 21 physicians in the Accident and Emergency Department of South Stockholm General Hospital. Identifies four descriptive categories for possibilities and obstacles. Concludes that gaining access to patient drug history enables physicians to carry out work in a professional way – a need the computerised prescription support system was not developed for and thus cannot fulfil. Alerts and producer‐independent drug information are valuable in reducing workload. However, technical prerequisites form the base for a successful implementation. Time must be given to adapt to new ways of working.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on the response of doctors to health policy initiatives in general and clinical governance in particular.

A qualitative approach has been adopted where the empirical data collection and the analysis are influenced by a phenomenological case study approach. An instrumental case study is undertaken and a heterogeneous group of 33 persons with important responsibilities for clinical governance was interviewed using a semi‐structured format.

The results indicate that doctors are not enthusiastic about clinical governance and it is not receiving wholehearted support from doctors because they feel that clinical governance is a management‐led initiative imposed without adequate consultations. The real reasons for lack of enthusiasm, indifference and sometimes resistance of doctors to clinical governance are examined. This paper points out the tension between an organisation (wishing to bring clinical care within a management framework) and doctors (who are resisting managerial efforts to replace the old framework of bureau professionalism).

Further research is required to develop a better understanding of the influence of clinical governance on power and conflict in NHS organisations.

This paper has practical implications for policy makers as well as NHS managers. Policy makers may consider suitable amendments in clinical governance to minimise resistance and seek the support of clinicians. A better understanding of this issue would perhaps enable NHS management to develop better management practices that will make it possible to seek the support of doctors for clinical governance.

Limited attention has been paid to understanding the response of doctors to clinical governance. This empirical research makes a valuable contribution by focusing on this important aspect of clinical governance.