What Might Be Required for Inspections to Be Considered Fair?; Comment on “What Lies Behind Successful Regulation? A Qualitative Evaluation of Pilot Implementation of Kenya’s Health Facility Inspection Reforms”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 Department of Social Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway

2 Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Abstract

Tama et al offer us an interesting analysis of a piloted regulatory reform that introduced a Joint Health Inspections (JHIs) system in three Kenyan counties. The study highlights key factors facilitating or hindering the implementation of the reform. In this commentary we reflect on the concept of fairness, which is one of the topics that is discussed in the study. We describe four important dimensions of fairness in the context of inspections: expectation clarity, consistency of assessment, consistency of enforcement, and fairness to patients. We argue that all four dimensions are important in the regulatory design, in order for the inspection to be perceived as fair.

Keywords


  1. Hirschhorn LR, Ramaswamy R. Quality improvement in low- and middle-income countries. In: Sollecito WA, Johnson JK, eds. McLaughlin and Kaluzny’s Continuous Quality Improvement in Health Care. 5th ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2019: 297-310.
  2. Healy J. Improving Health Care Safety and Quality: Reluctant Regulators. Law, Ethics and Governance Series. Ashgate; 2011.
  3. Hood C, Scott C, James O, Jones G, Travers T. Regulation Inside Government: Waste-Watchers, Quality Police, and Sleaze-Busters. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. doi:1093/0198280998.001.0001
  4. Tama E, Khayoni I, Goodman C, et al. What lies behind successful regulation? A qualitative evaluation of pilot implementation of Kenya’s health facility inspection reforms. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.90
  5. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review- -a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10 Suppl 1:21-34. doi:1258/1355819054308530
  6. Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
  7. Kvalnes Ø. Moral Reasoning at Work: Rethinking Ethics in Organizations. London: Palgrave Pivot; 2019.
  8. Kim WC, Mauborgne R. Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy. Harv Bus Rev. 1997;75(4):65-75.
  9. Bevan G, Hood C. What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Adm. 2006;84(3):517- 538. doi:1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x
  10. Rutz S, Mathew D, Robben P, de Bont A. Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regul Gov. 2017;11(1):81-94. doi:1111/rego.12101
  11. Seekles W, Widdershoven G, Robben P, van Dalfsen G, Molewijk B. Inspectors’ ethical challenges in health care regulation: a pilot study. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20(3):311-320. doi:1007/s11019-016-9736-z
  12. Wiig S, Rutz S, Boyd A, et al. What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):616. doi:1186/s12913-020-05471-4
  13. Schmidt V, Wood M. Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Adm. 2019;97(4):727-740. doi:1111/padm.12615
  14. Grimmelikhuijsen S, Herkes F, Leistikow I, Verkroost J, de Vries F, Zijlstra WG. Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment. Regul Gov. 2021;15(1):17-31. doi:1111/rego.12278
  15. Steffek J. The limits of proceduralism: critical remarks on the rise of ‘throughput legitimacy’. Public Adm. 2019;97(4):784-796. doi:1111/ padm.12565
  16. Husabø G, Teig IL, Frich JC, Bondevik GT, Hovlid E. Promoting leadership and quality improvement through external inspections of management of sepsis in Norwegian hospitals: a focus group study. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(11):e041997. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041997

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 24 May 2022
  • Receive Date: 31 March 2022
  • Revise Date: 21 May 2022
  • Accept Date: 23 May 2022
  • First Publish Date: 24 May 2022