Regulating health professional scopes of practice: comparing institutional arrangements and approaches in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK

Background Fundamentally, the goal of health professional regulatory regimes is to ensure the highest quality of care to the public. Part of that task is to control what health professionals do, or their scope of practice . Ideally, this involves the application of evidence-based professional standa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Human resources for health Jg. 19; H. 1; S. 15 - 12
Hauptverfasser: Leslie, Kathleen, Moore, Jean, Robertson, Chris, Bilton, Douglas, Hirschkorn, Kristine, Langelier, Margaret H., Bourgeault, Ivy Lynn
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: London BioMed Central 28.01.2021
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Schlagworte:
Accountability
Canada
Comparative analysis
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
Federal court decisions
Flexibility
Health Administration
Health care reform
Health professions
Health Services Research
Health workforce: Accreditation of education and regulation of practice
Human Resource Development
Human Resource Management
Management
Medical care
Medical personnel
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Optimization
Pandemics
Patient safety
Practice and Hospital Management
Professional regulation
Professionals
Professions
Quality management
Regulation
Scope of practice
Scopes of practice
Social Policy
Workforce
Switzerland
Canada
United Kingdom > UK
Australia
United States > US
Canada
UK
Professional regulation
Scopes of practice
Health professions
Australia
US
ISSN:1478-4491, 1478-4491
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Fundamentally, the goal of health professional regulatory regimes is to ensure the highest quality of care to the public. Part of that task is to control what health professionals do, or their scope of practice . Ideally, this involves the application of evidence-based professional standards of practice to the tasks for which health professional have received training. There are different jurisdictional approaches to achieving these goals. Methods Using a comparative case study approach and similar systems policy analysis design, we present and discuss four different regulatory approaches from the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. For each case, we highlight the jurisdictional differences in how these countries regulate health professional scopes of practice in the interest of the public. Our comparative Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis is based on archival research carried out by the authors wherein we describe the evolution of the institutional arrangements for form of regulatory approach, with specific reference to scope of practice. Results/conclusions Our comparative examination finds that the different regulatory approaches in these countries have emerged in response to similar challenges. In some cases, ‘tasks’ or ‘activities’ are the basis of regulation, whereas in other contexts protected ‘titles’ are regulated, and in some cases both. From our results and the jurisdiction-specific SWOT analyses, we have conceptualized a synthesized table of leading practices related to regulating scopes of practice mapped to specific regulatory principles. We discuss the implications for how these different approaches achieve positive outcomes for the public, but also for health professionals and the system more broadly in terms of workforce optimization.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1478-4491
1478-4491
DOI:10.1186/s12960-020-00550-3