Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper examines the exercise of discretion by casualty reception staff, focussing on the problems of accountability that arise when their judgements help shape the process of patient categorization that culminates in clinical diagnosis. Rules and guidelines which ostensibly relate to bureaucratic objectives, are applied in ways which reflect situational exigencies of reception work, and values embedded in organisational culture. But reception staff are reluctant to acknowledge the importance of their decisions, and, particularly where judgements relate to patient condition, present rule-use as a straightforward and certain activity in which interpretation plays little part.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Hughes (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: