The imbalance between demand and supply in Dutch healthcare led to the introduction of task redistribution at the beginning of the 21st century. Some new occupations arrived, and many, especially occupations in allied healthcare, underwent major changes in scope of practice and authorization. One example is dental hygiene, which is the field of study chosen for this thesis.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the scope of dental hygiene practice was expanded in 2006. The objective of this study was to explore reasons among dentists and dental hygienists for supporting or opposing an extended scope of practice and to find explanatory factors.METHODS: A questionnaire containing pre-defined reasons and an open-ended question was distributed among 1,674 randomly selected members of two Dutch professional associations (874 dentists, 800 dental hygienists). Data were analyzed with binary logistic regression with Bayesian information criterion (BIC) model selection.RESULTS: Response were obtained from 541 practitioners (32.3%): i.e., 233 dentists (43.1%) and 308 dental hygienists (56.9%). Non-response analysis revealed no differences, and representativeness analysis showed similarities between samples and target populations. Most often, dentists reported flexible collaboration (50.2%) and dental hygienists indicated task variation (71.1%) as supportive reasons. As opposing reasons, dentists generally reported quality of care (41.2%) and dental hygienists' self-competence (22.7%). Reasons were explained by profession, gender, and new-style practitioners.CONCLUSION: Dentists and dental hygienists conveyed different reasons for supporting or opposing an extended scope of dental hygiene practice. Outcomes can be categorized as reasons related to economic, professional status, quality, job satisfaction, and flexible collaboration and are not only explained by profession.
DOCUMENT
Rationale, aims and objectives: The aims of this study are as follows: (a) to establish whether a relationship exists between the importance that healthcare professionals attach to ethics in care and their likelihood to report reprehensible conduct committed by colleagues, and (b) to assess whether this relationship is moderated by behavioural control targeted at preventing harm. Method: In this cross-sectional study, which was based on a convenience sample (n = 155) of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in the Netherlands, we measured ethics advocacy (EA) as a motivating factor (reflecting the importance that healthcare professionals attach to ethics and care) and “behavioral control targeted at preventing harm” (BCPH) as a facilitating factor. “Reporting reprehensible conduct” (RRC) was measured as a context-specific indicator of whistleblowing intentions, consisting of two vignettes describing morally questionable behaviour committed by colleagues. Results: The propensity to report reprehensible conduct was a function of the interaction between EA and BCPH. The only group for which EA predicted RRC consisted of individuals with above-average levels of perceived BCPH. Conclusion: The results suggest that the importance that healthcare professionals attach to ethical aspects in care is not sufficient to ensure that they will report reprehensible conduct. Such importance does not induce reporting behaviour unless the professionals also perceive themselves as having a high level of BCPH. We suggest that these insights could be helpful in training healthcare providers to cope with ethical dilemmas that they are likely to encounter in their work.
DOCUMENT
