Why patients may not exercise their choice when referred for hospital care:An exploratory study based on interviews with patients

Background Various north-western European health-care systems encourage patients to make an active choice of health-care provider. This study explores, qualitatively, patients' hospital selection processes and provides insight into the reasons why patients do or do not make active choices. Methods Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 142 patients in two departments of three Dutch hospitals. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed in accordance with the grounded theory approach. Results Three levels of choice activation were identified – passive, semi-active and active. The majority of the patients, however, visited the default hospital without having used quality information or considered alternatives. Various factors relating to patient, provider and health-care system characteristics were identified that influenced patients' level of choice activation. On the whole, the patients interviewed could be classified into five types with regard to how they chose, or ‘ended up at’ a hospital. These types varied from patients who did not have a choice to patients who made an active choice. Conclusions A large variation exists in the way patients choose a hospital. However, most patients tend to visit the default without being concerned about choice. Generally, they do not see any reason to choose another hospital. In addition, barriers exist to making choices. The idea of a patient who actively makes a choice originates from neoclassical microeconomic theory. However, policy makers may try in vain to bring principles originating from this theory into health care. Even so, patients do value the opportunity of attending ‘their’ own hospital

Risk, trust and patients’ strategic choices of healthcare practitioners

Research on patients’ choice of healthcare practitioners has focussed on countries with regulated and controlled healthcare markets. In contrast, low- and middle-income countries have a pluralistic landscape where untrained, unqualified and unlicensed informal healthcare providers (IHPs) provide significant share of services. Using qualitative data from 58 interviews in an Indian village, this paper explores how patients choose between IHPs and qualified practitioners in the public and formal private sectors. The study found that patients’ choices were structurally constrained by accessibility and affordability of care and choosing a practitioner from any sector presented some risk. Negotiation and engagement with risks depended on perceived severity of the health condition and trust in practitioners. Patients had low institutional trust in public and formal private sectors, whereas IHPs operated outside any institutional framework. Consequently, people relied on relational or competence-derived interpersonal trust. Care was sought from formal private practitioners for severe issues due to high-competence-based interpersonal trust in them, whereas for other issues IHPs were preferred due to high relationship-based interpersonal trust. The research shows that patients develop a strategic approach to practitioner choice by using trust to negotiate risks, and crucially, in low- and middle-income countries IHPs bridge a gap by providing accessible and affordable care imbued with relational–interpersonal trust

Comparative Performance Information Plays No Role in the Referral Behaviour of GPs

Comparative performance information (CPI) about the quality of hospital care is information used to identify high-quality hospitals and providers. As the gatekeeper to secondary care, the general practitioner (GP) can use CPI to reflect on the pros and cons of the available options with the patient and choose a provider best fitted to the patient’s needs. We investigated how GPs view their role in using CPI to choose providers and support patients. Method: We used a mixed-method, sequential, exploratory design to conduct explorative interviews with 15 GPs about their referral routines, methods of referral consideration, patient involvement, and the role of CPI. Then we quantified the qualitative results by sending a survey questionnaire to 81 GPs affiliated with a representative national research network. Results: Seventy GPs (86% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most GPs did not know where to find CPI (87%) and had never searched for it (94%). The GPs reported that they were not motivated to use CPI due to doubts about its role as support information, uncertainty about the effect of using CPI, lack of faith in better outcomes, and uncertainty about CPI content and validity. Nonetheless, most GPs believed that patients would like to be informed about quality-of- care differences (62%), and about half the GPs discussed quality-of-care differences with their patients (46%), though these discussions were not based on CPI. Conclusion: Decisions about referrals to hospital care are not based on CPI exchanges during GP consultations. As a gatekeeper, the GP is in a good position to guide patients through the enormous amount of quality information that is available. Nevertheless, it is unclear how and whether the GP’s role in using information about quality of care in the referral process can grow, as patients hardly ever initiate a discussion based on CPI, though they seem to be increasingly more critical about differences in quality of care. Future research should address the conditions needed to support GPs’ ability and willingness to use CPI to guide their patients in the referral process

Kiezen voor een zorgverlener.

Stel, een patiënt heeft een zorgverlener nodig. De veronderstelling is dan dat de patiënt informatie over prijs en kwaliteit van verschillende zorgverleners inwint en daarna de beste uitkiest. In de praktijk kiezen mensen echter vaak voor een optie die voor de hand ligt. De vraag is of zorgverleners op deze manier wel voldoende geprikkeld worden om de zorg voor alle patiënten te optimaliseren. (aut. ref.