↓ Skip to main content

Using regulatory enforcement theory to explain compliance with quality and patient safety regulations: the case of internal audits

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Using regulatory enforcement theory to explain compliance with quality and patient safety regulations: the case of internal audits
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2865-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrike Weske, Paul Boselie, Elizabeth L. J. van Rensen, Margriet M. E. Schneider

Abstract

Implementing an accredited quality and patient safety management system is inevitable for hospitals. Even in the case of an obligatory rule system, different approaches to implement such a system can be used: coercive (based on monitoring and threats of punishment) and catalytic (based on dialogue and suggestion). This study takes these different approaches as a starting point to explore whether and how implementation actions are linked to compliance. By doing so, this study aims to contribute to the knowledge on how to increase compliance with obligatory rules and regulations. The internal audit system (the 'tracer system') of a large Dutch academic hospital is used as a case to investigate different implementation approaches and their effect on compliance. This case allowed us to use a multi-actor and multi-method approach for data collection. Internal audits (N = 16) were observed, audit reports were analyzed, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with both the internal auditors (N = 23) and the ward leaders (N = 14) responsible for compliance. Framework analysis was used to analyze the data. Although all auditors use catalytic enforcement actions, these do not lead to (intended) compliance of all ward leaders. Rather, the catalytic actions contribute to (intended) compliance of ward leaders that are motivated, whereas they do not for the ward leaders that are not motivated. For the motivated ward leaders, catalytic enforcement actions contribute to (intended) compliance by increasing ward leaders' knowledge of the rules and how to comply with them. Our findings suggest that the effectiveness of implementation actions depends not only on the actions themselves, but also on the pre-existing motivation to comply. These findings imply that there is not one 'best' approach to the implementation of obligatory rules. Rather, the most effective approach depends on the willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 50 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 49 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,204,223
of 24,460,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,805
of 8,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,754
of 449,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#120
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,460,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.