Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-dkwk2 Total loading time: 0.22 Render date: 2021-07-29T23:15:34.500Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

Anna Dixon
Affiliation:
Director of Policy, The King’s Fund, London, UK
Ruth Robertson
Affiliation:
Senior Researcher, The King’s Fund, London, UK
Roland Bal
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

The implementation of choice for patients over where and when they are seen by specialists in hospital outpatient clinics has been supported by electronic referral systems in England and the Netherlands. This paper compares the implementation of ‘Choose and Book’ in England and ‘ZorgDomein’ in a region of the Netherlands. For England the analysis draws on national data and published studies on ‘Choose and Book’, national patient surveys, and qualitative data based on general practitioner (GP) focus groups. For the Netherlands the analysis draws on qualitative data collected during observational study as well as survey data among patients, GPs and medical specialists. We find that despite significant differences in the genesis and design of the policy, similar challenges have been faced. The electronic referral systems have forced changes to the process of care at the interface between primary and secondary care and standardisation between practices. Although these changes have the potential to generate improvements and benefits, for example, convenience, certainty and choice for patients and efficiency gains through for example reduced do not attend rates, repeat consultations and duplicative diagnostic tests; they have also generated problems during implementation including GP resistance. Policy ambitions for patient choice may not be realised if the implementation of the booking system is not carefully designed and evaluated.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, S.De Bont, A. (2007), ‘Information Rx: prescribing good consumerism and responsible citizenship’, Health Care Analysis, 15: 273290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, J., Harrison, A.Devlin, N. (2003), What is the Real Cost of More Patient Choice?, London: King’s Fund.Google Scholar
Audit Commission (2008), Is the Treatment Working? Progress with the NHS System Reform Programme, London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Bal, R.Mastboom, F. (2004), Anders Werken Met Zorgdomein? Rotterdam: IBMG.Google Scholar
Bal, R.Mastboom, F. (2005), Op weg naar transmurale samenwerking? Eindevaluatie ZorgDomein ZO Brabant, Rotterdam: IBMG.Google Scholar
Bal, R.Mastboom, F. (2007), ‘Engaging with technologies in practice: travelling the North–West passage’, Science as Culture, 16(3): 253266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bal, R., Mastboom, F., Spiers, H. P.Rutten, H. (2007), ‘The product and process of referral. Optimising GP-specialist communication through ICT’, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76, Supplement 1: S28S34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, W., van Exel, J., Hermans, B.Stoop, A. (2003), ‘Should I stay or should I go? Waiting lists and cross-border care in the Netherlands’, Health Policy, 63(3): 289298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Medical Association (2009), Choose and Book – Learning Lessons from Local Experience, London: BMA.Google Scholar
Burge, P., Devlin, N., Appleby, J., Rohr, C.Grant, J. (2005), London Patient Choice Project Evaluation a Model of Patients’ Choices of Hospital from Stated and Revealed Preference Choice Data, Cambridge: RAND Europe.Google Scholar
Connecting for Health (2008), Supporting Transformation. National Programme for IT in the NHS. Benefits Statement 2006/07, Leeds: Connecting for Health.Google Scholar
Coulter, A., le Maistre, N.Henderson, L. (2005), Patients’ Experience of Choosing Where to Undergo Surgical Treatment. Evaluation of London Patient Choice Scheme, Oxford: Picker Institute Europe.Google Scholar
Dawson, D., Jacobs, R., Martin, S.Smith, P. (2004), Evaluation of the London Patient Choice Project: System Wide Impacts. Final Report, York: University of York.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2000), The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment, A Plan for Reform, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002), Delivering the NHS Plan: Next Steps on Investment, Next Steps on Reform, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2004), Choose and Book – Patient’s Choice of Hospital and Booked Appointment: Policy Framework for Choice and Booking at Point of Referral London, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2006), The NHS in England: The Operating Framework for 2006/7, NHS, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2007a), Choice at Referral – Guidance Framework for 2007/8, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2007b), Choose and Book: GMS Contract Directed Enhanced Service for Choice and Booking FAQs, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2007c), Report on the National Patient Choice Survey – July 2007 England, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2008a), High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2008b), Report on the National Patient Choice Survey – September 2007, England, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2008c), The NHS in England: The Operating Framework for 2008/9, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2009a), The National Health Service Constitution, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2009b), Report on the National Patient Choice Survey – March 2009. England, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2009c), National Health Service England. The Primary Care Trusts (Choice of Secondary Care Provider) Directions 2009, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health and HM Government (2004), The NHS Improvement Plan: Putting People at the Heart of Public Services, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ferlie, E., Freeman, G., McDonnell, J., Petsoulas, C.Rundle-Smith, S. (2005), NHS London Patient Choice Project Evaluation Organisational Process Strand Final Report, London: Royal Holloway, University of London and Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Fotaki, M. (1999), ‘The impact of market oriented reforms on choice and information: a case study of cataract surgery in outer London and Stockholm’, Social Science & Medicine, 48(10): 14151432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotaki, M. (2007), ‘Patient choice in healthcare in England and Sweden: from quasi-market and back to market? A comparative analysis of failure in unlearning’, Public Administration, 85(4): 10591075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J., McDowall, Z.Potts, H. W. W. (2008), ‘Does choose and book fail to deliver the expected choice to patients? A survey of patients’ experience of outpatient appointment booking’, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8: 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansard (House of Commons Debates) (2008–09), 4 February 2009 Column 264WH. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090204/halltext/90204h0006.htmcolumn_262WHGoogle Scholar
Healthcare Commission (2008). Complete Data Set of Existing National Target Indicator Results for 2007/08, http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_downloads/ENT_results_downloads_2007-08_200810175420.xls'4122'!A1 [11 December 2008].Google Scholar
Hendy, J., Fulop, N., Reeves, B. C., Hutchings, A.Collin, S. (2007), ‘Implementing the NHS information technology programme: qualitative study of progress in acute trusts’, British Medical Journal, 334(7608): 1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henwood, F., Wyatt, S., Hart, A.Smith, J. (2003), ‘ “Ignorance is Bliss Sometimes”: constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscape of health information’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(6): 589607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007), Department of Health: The National Programme for IT in the NHS. Twentieth Report of Session 2006–07. Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Knippers, E. W. A., Breedveld, E. J., Andela, M. G.Lambeck, S. (2001), Wachtlijstbemiddeling in de curatieve zorg. Het aanbod in beeld; eindrapport, Den Haag: ZonMw.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2007), The Other Invisible Hand. Delivering Public Services Through Choice and Competition, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Le Maistre, N., Reeves, R.Coulter, A. (2003), Patients’ Experience of CHD Choice, Oxford Picker: Institute Europe.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2005), Knowledge of the Choose and Book Programme Amongst GPs in England. An Update of the 2004 Survey of GPs’ Opinions for the National Audit Office, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2006), Department of Health: The National Programme for IT in the NHS. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 1173 Session 2005–2006, 16 June 2006, London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Pothier, D., Awad, Z.Tierney, P. (2006), ‘Choose and Book’ in ENT: the GP perspective’, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 120: 222225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirnejad, H., Bal, R., Stoop, A.Berg, M. (2007), ‘Inter-organisational communication networks in healthcare: centralised versus decentralised approaches’, International Journal for Integrated Care, 7: e14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, R.Dixon, A. (2009), Choice at the Point of Referral: Early Results of a Patient Survey, London: The King’s Fund.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. (2007), ‘Choose and Book Meeting with Anna Dixon, Westminster PCT’. Personal communication, 11 October 2007.Google Scholar
Rosen, R., Florin, D.Hutt, R. (2007), An Anatomy Of GP Referral Decisions: A Qualitative Study Of GPs’ Views on their Role In Supporting Patient Choice, London: King’s Fund.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, M. (2010), ‘Choice cuts: parsing policymakers’ pursuit of patient empowerment from an individual perspective’, Health Economics, Policy and Law, 5: 365387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiers, H. P. (2008) Personal communication, 28 March (telephone conversation).Google Scholar
Stoop, A., Vrangbaek, K.Berg, M. (2005), ‘Theory and practice of waiting time data as a performance indicator in health care. A case study from The Netherlands’, Health Policy, 73(1): 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R., Pringle, M.Coupland, C. (2004), Implications of Offering “Patient Choice” for Routine Adult Surgical Referrals. Project Final Report Submitted to Department of Health March 2004, London: Dr Foster and the University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Thomson, S.Dixon, A. (2006), ‘Choices in health care: the European experience’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 11(3): 167171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorlby, R.Turner, P. (2007), Choice and Equity. PCT Survey, London: King’s Fund.Google Scholar
van der Ploeg, I., Winthereik, B. R.Bal, R. (2006), ‘EPRs in the consultation room: effects on doctor-patient relationships’, Ethics and Information Technology, 8(2): 7383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrangbaek, K.Bech, M. (2004), ‘County level responses to the introduction of DRG rates for “extended choice” hospital patients in Denmark’, Health Policy, 67(1): 2537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrangbaek, K., Ostergren, K., Okkels Birk, H.Winbald, U. (2007), ‘Patient reactions to hospital choice in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden’, Health Economics, Policy and Law, 2: 125152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *