Amalgamation of Professional Regulators: Conflicting Perceptions and Beliefs Among Canadian Regulatory Leaders

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Tracey L. Adams PhD
{"title":"Amalgamation of Professional Regulators: Conflicting Perceptions and Beliefs Among Canadian Regulatory Leaders","authors":"Tracey L. Adams PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00059-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In Canada and the United Kingdom, there is discussion about amalgamating nursing and other professional regulatory bodies to improve efficiency; however, there is a dearth of research on the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To begin to address this gap, this article explores Canadian regulatory leaders’ views about professional regulator amalgamation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 83 Canadian regulatory leaders (in regulatory bodies, government, and other related roles). Qualitative description analyses were conducted on interview transcripts.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants identified several advantages of amalgamation, believing it was valuable for small, under-resourced regulators, as well as for regulators in the same field, such as nursing and oral healthcare. Some participants anticipated improvements in regulatory effectiveness that would benefit regulators, governments, and society. However, participants also raised concerns about amalgamation: prioritizing efficiency over effectiveness, lack of evidence of success, and concerns about inequality. Participants also provided advice to facilitate amalgamation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Limited evidence and conflicting views on this regulatory change encourage caution among those pursuing amalgamation of professional regulators. It is clear that collaboration is key to successful amalgamation; thus, it should not be forced or mandated.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 2","pages":"Pages 25-33"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S215582562200059X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In Canada and the United Kingdom, there is discussion about amalgamating nursing and other professional regulatory bodies to improve efficiency; however, there is a dearth of research on the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation.

Purpose

To begin to address this gap, this article explores Canadian regulatory leaders’ views about professional regulator amalgamation.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with 83 Canadian regulatory leaders (in regulatory bodies, government, and other related roles). Qualitative description analyses were conducted on interview transcripts.

Results

Participants identified several advantages of amalgamation, believing it was valuable for small, under-resourced regulators, as well as for regulators in the same field, such as nursing and oral healthcare. Some participants anticipated improvements in regulatory effectiveness that would benefit regulators, governments, and society. However, participants also raised concerns about amalgamation: prioritizing efficiency over effectiveness, lack of evidence of success, and concerns about inequality. Participants also provided advice to facilitate amalgamation.

Conclusion

Limited evidence and conflicting views on this regulatory change encourage caution among those pursuing amalgamation of professional regulators. It is clear that collaboration is key to successful amalgamation; thus, it should not be forced or mandated.

专业监管机构的合并:加拿大监管领导人之间相互冲突的看法和信念
在加拿大和英国,有关于合并护理和其他专业监管机构以提高效率的讨论;然而,关于合并的利弊研究却很少。为了开始解决这一差距,本文探讨了加拿大监管领导人对专业监管机构合并的看法。方法对83位加拿大监管机构领导人(监管机构、政府和其他相关角色)进行深度访谈。对访谈笔录进行定性描述分析。结果参与者确定了合并的几个优点,认为这对小型,资源不足的监管机构以及同一领域的监管机构(如护理和口腔保健)是有价值的。一些与会者预期监管效率的提高将有利于监管机构、政府和社会。然而,与会者也提出了对合并的担忧:优先考虑效率而不是效果,缺乏成功的证据,以及对不平等的担忧。嘉宾亦就合并提供意见。关于这一监管变化的有限证据和相互矛盾的观点促使那些寻求合并专业监管机构的人保持谨慎。显然,合作是成功合并的关键;因此,它不应该被强迫或授权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
50
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Nursing Regulation (JNR), the official journal of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN®), is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, academic and professional journal. It publishes scholarly articles that advance the science of nursing regulation, promote the mission and vision of NCSBN, and enhance communication and collaboration among nurse regulators, educators, practitioners, and the scientific community. The journal supports evidence-based regulation, addresses issues related to patient safety, and highlights current nursing regulatory issues, programs, and projects in both the United States and the international community. In publishing JNR, NCSBN''s goal is to develop and share knowledge related to nursing and other healthcare regulation across continents and to promote a greater awareness of regulatory issues among all nurses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信