Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The current status of decision-making procedures and quality assurance in Europe: an overview

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The 2005 Report on Social Responsibility and Health of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee (Ibc) proposes a new approach to implementing the right to healthcare and suggests a number of Courses of Action to be followed in various fields. Based on the latest available data, we intend to present an overview of the current state of European health systems in two of those fields—decision-making procedures and quality assurance in health care—and to attempt a comparison of the situation with the Report’s provisions, in order to pave the way for the identification of what still has to be done to bridge international recommendations and the reality of policy and practice in Europe’s health care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bal, R., W. Bijker, and R. Hendriks. 2002. Paradox van wetenschappelijk gezag. Over de maatschappelijke invloed van adviezen van de Gezondheidsraad, 1985–2001. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bal, R., and A. van de Lindeloof. 2006. Publieksparticipatie bij pakketbeslissingen: Leren van buitenlandse ervaringen. In Zicht op zinnige en duurzame zorg—Achtergrondstudie. Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, Den Haag.

  • BQS website. Duesseldorf, German Federal Agency for Quality Assurance. http://www.bqs-online.de/. Accessed Oct 2010.

  • Berg, M., and T. van der Grinten. 2003. The Netherlands. In Reasonable rationing: International experience of priority setting in health care, ed. C. Ham, and G. Robert. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, M., T. van der Grinten, and N. Klazinga. 2004. Technology assessment, priority setting and appropriate care in Dutch health care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20(1): 35–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calltorp, J. 1999. Priority setting in health policy in Sweden and a comparison with Norway. Health Policy 50: 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. 2006. Myth: People use health system report cards to make decisions about their healthcare. http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth23_e.php. Accessed Oct 2010.

  • Council of Europe 1997. Appendix to Recommendation R (97)17 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the development and implementation of quality improvement systems (QIS) in health care. www.coe.int/t/dg3/health/Source/Rec(97)17memo_en.doc. Accessed May 2011.

  • CPSS. 2007. Opinion barometer 2007. Bucharest, Centre for Health Policies and Services. http://www.cpss.ro. Accessed Oct 2010.

  • Charles, C., and S. Lay DeMaio. 1993. Participation in health care decision making: A conceptual framework. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 18(4): 881–904.

  • Cheng, T.M, and U. Reinhardt. 2008. Shepherding major health system reforms: A conversation with German health minister Ulla Schmidt. Health Affairs 27(3): w204–w209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commissie Keuzen in Zorg, Commissie Dunning. 1991. Kiezen en delen. Rijswijk: Ministerie van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commissie Structuur en Financiering Gezondheidszorg. 1987. Bereidheid tot verandering. Rapport. Den Haag: SDU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. 2001. Recommendation Rec (2001)13 on developing a methodology for drawing up guidelines on best medical practices and explanatory memorandum of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.

  • Council of Europe. 2006. Recommendation Rec(2006)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on management of patient safety and prevention of adverse events in health care. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.

  • DACEHTA website. 2007. Copenhagen, danish centre for health technology assessment. http://www.sst.dk/Global/leksikon/MTV.aspx. Accessed Oct 2010.

  • Daniels, N. 2000. Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal 321(7272): 1300–1301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 1991. Assessing the effects of health technologies. Department of Health, London.

  • Department of Health. 2000. An organisation with a memory. Report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS. London; The Stationery Office.

  • EC. 2008. COM (2008) 836 final: Council Recommendation on patient safety, including the prevention and control of healthcare associated infections. Brussels, 20 Jan 2009.

  • Edgar, W. 2000. Rationing health care in New Zealand—How the public has a say. In The global challenge of health care rationing, ed. A. Coulter, and C. Ham. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CASPE Research External Peer Review Techniques Project. 1998. ExPeRT. Peer review systems in Europe, London.

  • Gezondheidsraad. 2003. Contouren van het basispakket. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenewegen, P.P., J.J. Kerssens, H.J. Sixma, I. van der Eijk, and W. Boerma. 2005. What is important in evaluating health care quality? An international comparison of user views. BMC Health Services Research 5: 16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guidelines International Network. 2007. Guidelines International Network G-I-N. European Guideline Programmes. Berlin: Guidelines International Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, K. 2000. Deliberative democracy—Experiments with public involvement in decision-making. Bordeaux.

  • Harbers, H. 1996. De politiek van de technologie. Kennis and Methode 20(3): 308–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S., and M. Mort. 1998. Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy and Administration 32(1): 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenteufel, P., and B. Palier. 2009. Towards Neo-Bismarckian health care states? Comparing health insurance reforms in Bismarckian welfare systems. In Reforming the Bismarckian welfare systems, ed. B. Palier, and C. Martin. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Care and Medical Priorities Commission. 1993. No easy choices: The difficult priorities of healthcare. Scotkholm, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

  • Health Systems in Transition. Belgium. 2010. European observatory on health systems and policies.

  • Health Systems in Transition. Czech Republic. 2009. European observatory on health systems and policies.

  • Health Systems in Transition. The Netherlands. 2009. European observatory on health systems and policies.

  • Health Systems in Transition. Denmark. 2007. European observatory on health systems and policies.

  • Holm, S. 1998. Goodbye to the simple solutions: The second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ 317: 1000–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoedemaekers, R., and W. Dekkers. 2003. Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Analysis 11(4): 325–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulst, E. 1999. The quality dimension of the right to health care. In The right to health care in several European countries-studies in social policy, nr. 5, Kluwer Law International, Den Haag.

  • Goetz, A.M., and J. Gaventa. 2001. Bringing citizen voice and client focus into service delivery. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • IOM. 1990. Medicare: A strategy for quality assurance, vol. 1. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klazinga, N. 2000. Re-engineering trust: The adoption and adaption of four models for external quality assurance of health care services in western European health care systems. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 12(3): 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. 1998. Puzzling out priorities. Why we must acknowledge that rationing is a political process. BMJ 317: 959–960.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kunnamo, I. 2005. Finnish medical society: “EBM Guidelines” (EBMG) for primary care. Weybridge: Health Informatics Europe and BJHG Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecluysea, A., et al. 2009. Hospital supplements in Belgium: Price variation and regulation. Health Policy 92: 276–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legido-Quigley, H., M. McKee, E. Nolte, I.A. Glinois. 2008. Assuring the quality of health care in the European Union—A case for action. World Health Organization, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

  • Leu, R.E. et al. 2009. The Swiss and Dutch health insurance systems: Universal coverage and regulated competitive insurance markets, The Commonwealth Fund.

  • Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2006. The badness of discrimination. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9: 167–185. doi:10.1007/s10677-006-9014-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maarse, H., and A. Paulus. 2003. Has solidarity survived? A comparative analysis of the effect of social health insurance reform in four European Countries. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 28(4): 585–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D.K., and S.R. Benatar. 2008. Resource allocation: International perspectives on resource allocation. In International encyclopedia of public health, ed. H.K. Heggenhougen, and S.R. Quah, 540. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, R.J. 1992. Dimensions of quality revisited: From thought to action. Qualityin Health Care 1: 171–177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, L., B. Bereza, M. Shim, and P. Grootendorst. 2011. Financial burden of household out-of-pocket expenditures for prescription drugs: Cross-sectional analysis based on national survey data. 2011. Open Medicine, North America. Available at http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/381. Accessed 03 June 2011.

  • Saunders, Elsevier. 2003. Miller-Keane encyclopedia and dictionary of medicine, nursing, and allied health, seventh edition. Saunders, Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

  • Mossialos, E., and D. King. 1999. Citizens and rationing: Analysis of a European survey. Health Policy 49(1–2): 75–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newhouse, J.P. 1993. Free for all? Lessons from the RAND health insurance experiment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norheim, O.F. 2003. Norway. In Reasonable rationing: International experience of priority setting in health care, ed. C. Ham, and G. Robert. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oevretveit, J. 2001. Quality evaluation and indicator comparison in health care. International Journal of Health Planning Management 16: 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollenschlaeger, G., and I. Kopp. 2007. The German program for disease management guidelines. Results and perspectives. Medizinische Klinik 102: 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottes, L., and A.J.G. van Rijen. 2006. Prioriteiteninstelling in de gezondheidszorg: Een inventarisatie van de bevindingen van (regerings)commissies in binnen- en buitenland. In Zicht op zinnige en duurzame zorg—Achtergrondstudie. Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, Den Haag.

  • Paris, V., M. Devaux, and L. Wei. 2010. OECD health working papers no. 50. Health systems institutional characteristics: A survey of 29 OECD countries. OECD Directorate for employment, labour and social affairs.

  • Rawlins, M. 1999. In pursuit of quality: The national institute for clinical excellence. Lancet 353: 1079–1083.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. 2008. Resource allocation: Justice and resource allocation in public health. In International encyclopedia of public health, ed. H.K. Heggenhougen, and S.R. Quah. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. 2002. User charges for health care. In Funding health care: Options for Europe. European observatory on health care systems series, ed. E. Mossalos, A. Dixon, J. Figueras, and J. Kutzin. Buckingham-Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, R., and M. Shepherd. 2002. Public participation in the new NHS: No closer to citizen control? Social Policy and Administration 36(3): 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, R., and D. Mendelson. 1995. A framework for cost sharing policy analysis. In Sharing the costs of health: A multi-country perspective, ed. N. Mattison. Basle: Pharmaceutical Partners for Better Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabik, L.M., and R.K. Lie. 2008. Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal of Equity Health 7: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schieber, G., and A. Maeda. 1997. A curmudgeon’s guide to financing health care in developing countries. In Innovations in health care financing, ed. G. Schieber. Washington: World Bank.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, C., C. Bruneau, B. Kutryba, G. de Jongh, and R. Sunol. 2010. Towards hospital standardization in Europe. International Journal of Quality Health Care 22(4): 244–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, C., and I. Kalo. 2002. A background for national quality policies in health systems. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

  • Somekh, D. 2007. Working package 2: Mapping exercise of activities related to patient safety in EU countries. London: The ESQH Office for Patient Safety.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, F.C.J., and J. van der Zee. 2008. Health system organization models. In International encyclopedia of public health, ed. H.K. Heggenhougen, and S.R. Quah. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. 1995. Priorities in health care: Ethics, economy, implementation. Stokholm: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbensel, T. 2002. Interpreting public input into priority-setting: The role of mediating institutions. Health Policy 62(2): 173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Paris.

  • UNESCO. 2010. Report of the international bioethics committee on social responsibility and health. Paris.

  • Van der Zee, J., W.G.W. Boerma, and M.W. Kroneman. 2004. Health care systems: Understanding the stages of development. In Oxford textbook of primary medical care, vol. 1, ed. R. Jones, N. Britten, L. Culpepper, D.A. Gass, R. Grol, D. Mant, and C. Silagy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff, A. 2009. Policy research working paper #4821. Washington, DC: The World Bank; Social Health Insurance vs. Tax-Financed Health Systems—Evidence from the OECD.

  • Whitehead, M. 1991. The concepts and principles of equity and health. Health Promotion International 6(3): 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. 2000. The World Health Report 2000. Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, V., G. Mooney, G. Berry, and K.C. Tang. 2003. Involving the general public in priority setting: Experiences from Australia. Social Science and Medicine 56: 1001–1012.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Witter, S., and T. Ensor. 1997. An intro to health economics for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Xu, K., D.B. Evans, K. Kawabata, R. Zeramdini, J. Klavus, and C.J.L. Murray. 2003. Household catastrophic health expenditure: A multicountry analysis. Lancet 362: 111–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Public Health Association (EUPHA), Utrecht, The Netherlands

    L. Valerio & W. Ricciardi

Authors
  1. L. Valerio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Ricciardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Valerio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Valerio, L., Ricciardi, W. The current status of decision-making procedures and quality assurance in Europe: an overview. Med Health Care and Philos 14, 383–396 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9333-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9333-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation