Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
Critical Thinking II
Patient-centered Care
Methods of Documentation III: PIE
Ethical Dilemmas II
Methods of Documentation II: POMR
You might also read
Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.
Updated: Jul 10, 2026

Using Visual and Narrative Methods to Achieve Fair Process in Clinical Care
Published on: February 16, 2011
1Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden. leif.holmberg@staff.hkr.se
This study explores how healthcare organizations balance two different value systems: professional and administrative. Administrative guidelines assume medical problems are predictable and can be solved with standard procedures. However, doctors often face unpredictable situations that these guidelines don't cover. The study suggests that different administrative models are needed for predictable and unpredictable medical processes. This could help improve how guidelines are used in real-world clinical settings.
Area of Science:
Background:
Healthcare systems operate under dual institutional value patterns: professional and administrative. The administrative model assumes low task uncertainty in medical problem-solving. This assumption is supported by clinical pathways and administrative guidelines. However, clinical practice often shows high task uncertainty. Physicians frequently find these guidelines inadequate. They argue that guidelines fail to address deviations in patient care. This mismatch creates tension between administrative expectations and clinical realities. Existing guidelines impose uniform structures that may not fit all scenarios. The need for differentiated approaches becomes evident in varying uncertainty levels.
Purpose Of The Study:
This study examines the tension between administrative and professional value patterns in healthcare. It explores how medical problem-solving processes are structured under these dual frameworks. The goal is to understand how task uncertainty affects guideline implementation. The authors aim to identify why administrative guidelines often fail in practice. They investigate whether task uncertainty levels should dictate different administrative models. The study questions whether a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate. It proposes that distinct performance standards may be needed for different uncertainty levels. The authors seek to clarify how guidelines can better align with clinical realities.
Main Methods:
The study analyzes the coexistence of professional and administrative value patterns in healthcare organizations. It evaluates how clinical pathways and administrative guidelines are perceived and implemented. The authors use institutional theory to frame their analysis. They compare administrative assumptions with clinical observations. The study reviews existing literature on task uncertainty in medical settings. It examines how physicians experience and respond to guideline limitations. The authors propose a framework for categorizing medical processes by uncertainty levels. They suggest that different administrative models may be required for high and low uncertainty scenarios.
Main Results:
Administrative guidelines assume low task uncertainty in medical processes. However, physicians often experience high task uncertainty in practice. Clinical pathways fail to address deviations and complex patient cases. The mismatch between administrative assumptions and clinical realities is significant. Guidelines impose uniform structures that may not fit all medical scenarios. Medical processes with low uncertainty can be organized independently from those with high uncertainty. Each process requires distinct performance standards and administrative models. The findings suggest that administrative guidelines should vary based on task uncertainty levels.
Conclusions:
The authors conclude that administrative guidelines should not be uniformly applied. Medical processes with low task uncertainty can follow structured clinical pathways. Processes with high task uncertainty require different administrative models. The study suggests that performance standards should vary by uncertainty level. Current guidelines may not be suitable for all clinical scenarios. Physicians need administrative support that aligns with their actual task uncertainty. The authors propose that institutional frameworks should adapt to clinical realities. This approach could improve guideline implementation and medical decision-making.
Administrative guidelines assume low task uncertainty, but physicians often face high task uncertainty in practice. This mismatch leads to inadequate guidelines that fail to address clinical deviations.
Clinical pathways are administrative tools that assume low task uncertainty. They provide structured guidelines for well-defined medical problems, but may not cover complex or uncertain scenarios.
Task uncertainty determines whether administrative guidelines are appropriate. High uncertainty requires different administrative models and performance standards than low uncertainty processes.
Institutional theory frames the analysis of how professional and administrative value patterns coexist in healthcare organizations. It helps explain the tension between guideline assumptions and clinical realities.
Processes with low task uncertainty need one set of performance standards, while those with high uncertainty require different standards. Each should have autonomous administrative guideline models.
The authors propose that administrative guidelines should vary based on task uncertainty levels. Different models are needed for high and low uncertainty medical processes.