Autonomy and bureaucratic accountability in primary care: what English general practitioners say

Abstract

Abstract Clinical autonomy has long been seen as conceptually central to the analysis of the occupational status of the medical profession, though the implications for this of recent developments in health care managerialism have been disputed by theorists. In particular, the question has arisen as to whether ‘restratification’, that is, the active involvement of physicians in this process, should be construed as medical élites exerting control over the rank and file in order to protect the profession as a whole, or as an incursion from outside it. This paper uses interview data from 49 general medical practitioners in Northern England. It investigates their perceptions of how current government policies, and the new institutions and governance arrangements that they have created impact on physicians’ ability to set their own limits and to judge their own work. We found a clear acceptance by GPs of the need to discharge ‘bureaucratic accountability’, in particular to maintain records of their clinical decisions. This provides the possibility of external surveillance of medical work, and thus implies a clear reduction in autonomy over the content of medical work on the part of rank‐and‐file GPs, who may regret this situation but offer little resistance to it. Our findings illustrate a form of restratification; the most frequently reported immediate source of pressure to modify casenote recording was the Primary Care Group (PCG), an organisation constitutionally dominated by physicians acting in a managerial capacity. Nevertheless, the agendas of PCGs are largely driven by central government and our study thus provides further evidence of the intermediary or contingent (rather than independent) character of professional autonomy.