Sometimes Resigned, Sometimes Conflicted, and Mostly Risk Averse: Primary Care Doctors in India as Street Level Bureaucrats

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 School of Health Systems Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India

2 Division of Health Policy and Systems, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

3 Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

4 Center for Health and Social Sciences, School of Health Systems Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India

Abstract

Background
In this study, we use the case of medical doctors in the public health system in rural India to illustrate the nuances of how and why gaps in policy implementation occur at the frontline. Drawing on Lipsky’s Street Level Bureaucracy (SLB) theory, we consider doctors not as mechanical implementors of policies, but as having agency to implement modified policies that are better suited to their contexts.

 
Methods
We collected data from primary care doctors who worked in the public health system in rural Maharashtra, India between April and September 2018 (including 21 facility visits, 29 in depth interviews and several informal discussions). We first sorted the data inductively into themes. Then we used the SLB theoretical framework to categorise and visualise relationships between the extracted themes and deepen the analysis.

 
Results
Doctors reported facing several constraints in the implementation of primary care- including the lack of resources, the top-down imposition of programs that were not meaningful to them, limited support from the organization to improve processes as well as professional disinterest in their assigned roles. In response to these constraints, many doctors ‘routinized’ care, and became resigned and risk-averse. Most doctors felt a deep loss of professional identity, and accepted this loss as an inevitable part of a public sector job. Such attitudes and behaviours were not conducive to the delivery of good primary care.

 
Conclusion
This study adds to empirical literature on doctors as Street Level Bureaucrats in lower and middle income countries. Doctors from these settings have often been blamed for not living up to their professional standards and implementing policies with rigour. This study highlights that doctors’ behaviours in these settings are ways through which they ‘cope’ with their loss of professional identity and organizational constraints; and highlights the need for appropriate interventions to counter their weak motivation.

Keywords


  1. Lipsky M. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1980.
  2. Gilson L. Lipsky’s street level bureaucracy. In: Page E, Lodge M, Balla S, eds. Oxford Handbook of the Classics of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  3. Erasmus E. The use of street-level bureaucracy theory in health policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-ethnographic synthesis. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29 Suppl 3:iii70-78. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu112
  4. Rice D. Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Adm Soc. 2013;45(9):1038-1062. doi:10.1177/0095399712451895
  5. Brodkin EZ. Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: past, present, and future. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(6):940-949. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x
  6. Olivier de Sardan JP, Diarra A, Moha M. Travelling models and the challenge of pragmatic contexts and practical norms: the case of maternal health. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(Suppl 1):60. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0213-9
  7. Walker L, Gilson L. 'We are bitter but we are satisfied': nurses as street-level bureaucrats in South Africa. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(6):1251-1261. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.020
  8. Scott V, Mathews V, Gilson L. Constraints to implementing an equity-promoting staff allocation policy: understanding mid-level managers' and nurses' perspectives affecting implementation in South Africa. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27(2):138-146. doi:10.1093/heapol/czr020
  9. Diarra A, Ousseini A. The coping strategies of front-line health workers in the context of user fee exemptions in Niger. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(Suppl 3):S1. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-15-s3-s1
  10. Atinga RA, Agyepong IA, Esena RK. Ghana's community-based primary health care: why women and children are 'disadvantaged' by its implementation. Soc Sci Med. 2018;201:27-34. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.02.001
  11. Van der Veken K, Dkhimi F, Marchal B, Decat P. “They are after quantity, not quality”: health providers’ perceptions of fee exemption policies in Morocco. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(12):1110-1119. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.76
  12. Nunes J, Lotta G. Discretion, power and the reproduction of inequality in health policy implementation: practices, discursive styles and classifications of Brazil's community health workers. Soc Sci Med. 2019;242:112551. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112551
  13. Karadaghi G, Willott C. Doctors as the governing body of the Kurdish health system: exploring upward and downward accountability among physicians and its influence on the adoption of coping behaviours. Hum Resour Health. 2015;13:43. doi:10.1186/s12960-015-0039-x
  14. Gaede BM. Doctors as street-level bureaucrats in a rural hospital in South Africa. Rural Remote Health. 2016;16(1):3461.
  15. Kelly G. Ways of Coping: How Medical Doctors Manage their Work within the Social Security System in South Africa. Working Paper. Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town; 2017.
  16. Gaede BM. Civil Servant and Professional: Understanding the Challenges of Being A Public Service Doctor in A Plural Health Care Setting in Rural South Africa [thesis]. University of Pretoria; 2014.
  17. Aitken JM. Voices from the inside: managing district health services in Nepal. Int J Health Plann Manage. 1994;9(4):309-340. doi:10.1002/hpm.4740090405
  18. Ramani S, Sivakami M, Gilson L. How context affects implementation of the Primary Health Care approach: an analysis of what happened to primary health centres in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(Suppl 3):e001381. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001381
  19. Peabody JW, Taguiwalo MM, Robalino DA, Frenk J. Improving the quality of care in developing countries. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, et al, eds. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank; 2006.
  20. Madhiwalla N, Ghoshal R, Mavani P, Roy N. Identifying disrespect and abuse in organisational culture: a study of two hospitals in Mumbai, India. Reprod Health Matters. 2018;26(53):36-47. doi:10.1080/09688080.2018.1502021
  21. Kahabuka C, Moland KM, Kvåle G, Hinderaker SG. Unfulfilled expectations to services offered at primary health care facilities: experiences of caretakers of underfive children in rural Tanzania. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:158. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-158
  22. Audo MO, Ferguson A, Njoroge PK. Quality of health care and its effects in the utilisation of maternal and child health services in Kenya. East Afr Med J. 2005;82(11):547-553. doi:10.4314/eamj.v82i11.9407
  23. Government of India. Bulletin of Rural Health Statistics. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2017.
  24. Government of India. Indian Public Health Standards. Revised guidelines. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 2012.
  25. Government of India. The Planning Commission. High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage. New Delhi: Government of India; 2011.
  26. Medical Council of India. https://www.mciindia.org/. Accessed on February 16th 2019.
  27. National Health Systems Resource Centre (NHSRC). A Review of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms to Address the Shortage of Doctors in Rural, Remote and Underserved Areas. NHSRC; 2016. Available at http://nhsrcindia.org/sites/default/files/Regulatory%20study%20report.pdf
  28. Ranjan A. Measuring Equity as A Dimension of Progress Towards Universal Health Coverage [thesis]. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences; 2017.
  29. Rao KD, Shahrawat R, Bhatnagar A. Composition and distribution of the health workforce in India: estimates based on data from the National Sample Survey. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2016;5(2):133-140. doi:10.4103/2224-3151.206250
  30. Gilson L, Schneider H, Orgill M. Practice and power: a review and interpretive synthesis focused on the exercise of discretionary power in policy implementation by front-line providers and managers. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29 Suppl 3:iii51-69. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu098
  31. Brehm JO, Scott G. Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1999.
  32. Tummers LLG, Bekkers V, Vink E, Musheno M. Coping during public service delivery: a conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2015;25(4):1099-1126. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu056
  33. Gore RJ. Market Reform, Medical Care, And Public Service: Dilemmas of Municipal Primary Care Provision in Urban India [thesis]. Columbia University; 2017.
  34. Gofen A. Mind the gap: dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2014;24(2):473-493. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut037
  35. Stone CN.  Whither the welfare state? professionalization, bureaucracy, and the market alternative. Ethics.1983;93(3):588-595. doi:10.1086/292470
  36. Erasmus E, Gilson L, Govender V, Nkosi M. Organisational culture and trust as influences over the implementation of equity-oriented policy in two South African case study hospitals. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):164. doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0659-y
  37. Belaid L, Ridde V. Contextual factors as a key to understanding the heterogeneity of effects of a maternal health policy in Burkina Faso? Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(3):309-321. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu012
  38. Okello G, Molyneux S, Zakayo S, Gerrets R, Jones C. Producing routine malaria data: an exploration of the micro-practices and processes shaping routine malaria data quality in frontline health facilities in Kenya. Malar J. 2019;18(1):420. doi:10.1186/s12936-019-3061-y
  39. Evans T. Professionals, managers and discretion: critiquing street-level bureaucracy. Br J Soc Work. 2011;41(2):368-386. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
  40. Cohen N. How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: the Israeli case. Am Rev Public Adm. 2018;48(2):175-187. doi:10.1177/0275074016665919
  41. Hipgrave DB, Hort K. Dual practice by doctors working in South and East Asia: a review of its origins, scope and impact, and the options for regulation. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(6):703-716. doi:10.1093/heapol/czt053
  42. Government of India. Report of the Task Force on Comprehensive Primary Health Care Rollout. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2014-5.
  43. Sundararaman T, Gupta G. Indian approaches to retaining skilled health workers in rural areas. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(1):73-77. doi:10.2471/blt.09.070862
  44. Ramani S, Rao KD, Ryan M, Vujicic M, Berman P. For more than love or money: attitudes of student and in-service health workers towards rural service in India. Hum Resour Health. 2013;11:58. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-11-58
  45. Purohit B, Bandyopadhyay T. Beyond job security and money: driving factors of motivation for government doctors in India. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12:12. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-12-12
  46. Gilson L. Everyday politics and the leadership of health policy implementation. Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(3):187-193. doi:10.1080/23288604.2016.1217367
  47. Lehmann U, Gilson L. Action learning for health system governance: the reward and challenge of co-production. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(8):957-963. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu097
  48. Mbindyo P, Gilson L, Blaauw D, English M. Contextual influences on health worker motivation in district hospitals in Kenya. Implement Sci. 2009;4:43. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-43
  49. Munabi-Babigumira S, Glenton C, Willcox M, Nabudere H. Ugandan health workers' and mothers' views and experiences of the quality of maternity care and the use of informal solutions: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213511. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213511
  50. Alonso-Garbayo A, Raven J, Theobald S, Ssengooba F, Nattimba M, Martineau T. Decision space for health workforce management in decentralized settings: a case study in Uganda. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(Suppl_3):iii59-iii66. doi:10.1093/heapol/czx116 
  51. Gross K, Armstrong Schellenberg J, Kessy F, Pfeiffer C, Obrist B. Antenatal care in practice: an exploratory study in antenatal care clinics in the Kilombero Valley, south-eastern Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:36. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-36
  52. Zarychta A, Grillos T, Andersson KP. Public sector governance reform and the motivation of street-level bureaucrats in developing countries. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(1):75-91. doi:10.1111/puar.13132