• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Practice >How Fair is Fair Access to Care?
【24h】

How Fair is Fair Access to Care?

机译：公平获得护理的公平性如何？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Care management is designed, amongst other main objectives, to ensure cost-effective use of public money, including targeting resources on greatest need, through eligibility criteria. However, evidence accumulated to demonstrate marked inequities evolved over time, both within and between local authorities, as documented, for instance, by both the Audit Commission and the Royal Commission on Long-term Care. There were also particular concerns about those close to the threshold. Fair Access to Care Services, published by the Department of Health in 2002, was intended to reduce inequities. The study reported here reviews evidence of its fairness in practice, and further informs the debate by comparing both access to care and charges for that care in two inner London local authorities. It is argued that the new procedures make the rationing process more transparent, improve assessment practice, do not restrict care manager discretion as much as might be expected, but that inequities continue. These inequities are partly due to 'street level' decision-making by front-line practitioners, but also to a large extent due to decisions by senior managers and commissioners in relation to policy implementation locally, and the profile of providers from the private, voluntary and statutory sectors.
机译：除其他主要目标外，护理管理的目的还包括确保通过符合资格的标准来经济有效地使用公共资金，包括针对最需要的资源。但是，积累的证据表明地方当局内部和地方之间存在着明显的不平等现象，例如审计委员会和皇家长期护理委员会所记录的那样。对于那些接近阈值的人也有特别的担忧。卫生部于2002年发布的《公平获得护理服务》旨在减少不平等现象。此处的研究报告在实践中回顾了其公平性的证据，并通过比较伦敦两个内部地方当局的护理获得权和护理费来进一步为辩论提供信息。有人认为，新程序使配给过程更加透明，改善了评估实践，并未像预期的那样限制护理人员的酌处权，但这种不平等现象仍在继续。这些不平等的部分原因是一线从业者的“街头水平”决策，而且很大程度上是由于高级管理人员和专员在本地实施政策方面的决策，以及私人，自愿提供者的状况和法定部门。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号