No abstract

In many countries governments are recruiting the medical profession into a more active, transparent regulation of clinical practice. Consequently the medical profession adapts the ways it regulates itself and its relationship to health system managers changes. This paper uses empirical research in English Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to assess the value of Courpasson's concept of soft bureaucracy as a conceptualisation of these changes. Clinical governance in PCGs and PCTs displays important parallels with governance in soft bureaucracies, but the concept of soft bureaucracy requires modification to make it more applicable to general practice. In English primary care, governance over rank-and-file doctors is exercised by local professional leaders rather than general managers, harnessing their colleagues' perception of threats to professional autonomy and self-regulation rather than fears of competition as the means of 'soft coercion'.Keywords: Soft bureaucracy, primary care, professions, clinical governance, networks, England, NHS Professions and soft bureaucracyFor many years European governments have tried to collaborate with, indeed co-opt, professional networks as one means of managing public services and implementing public policy (Harrison and Dowswell 2002). Their strategy is to develop workable coalitions between general ( i.e. lay) managers and leaders of the profession, thereby minimising practitioner opposition but still maintaining the principles of general management (Thompson

Objectives: To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. Design: Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. Setting: Geographical spread across Great Britain. Participants: One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). Main outcome measures: Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. Results: A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). Conclusions: The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

It is in the interests of GPs to 'exploit' the advisory role of the pharmacist. A two-way referral system would allow doctors to build on the professional skills of the pharmacist as an over-the-counter expert, while ensuring that pharmacists have a channel through which to filter patients with potentially serious illnesses.