استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

If a teaching hospital loses funding, what is the next option? Mergers of Teaching Hospitals in Boston, New York, and Northern California investigates the recent mergers of six of the nation's most respected teaching hospitals. The author explains the reasons why these institutions decided to change their governance and the factors that have allowed two of them to continue to operate while forcing the third to dissolve after only 23 months of operation. The case studies contained within this book rely on an impressive amount of research. Notably, instead of citing only published articles and books, the author includes information from numerous, extensive personal interviews with key participants in the various mergers. With this research the author not only presents to the reader a picture of why these mergers came about, but also investigates how the organizations have fared since joining together. The mergers are analyzed and compared in order to identify various methods of merger formation as well as ways in which other newly formed hospitals might accomplish a variety of important goals. Offering a spectacular account of some of the mergers that occurred in the health care field at the close of the twentieth century, these stories provide insight into academia's relationship with teaching hospitals and the challenges involved in bringing prestigious and powerful medical institutions together. The institutions discussed are Partners, the corporation which includes the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Brigham and Women's Hospital, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, the union of the New York and Presbyterian hospitals in New York City, and the UCSF Stanford, the merged teaching hospitals of the University of California, San Francisco and Stanford. This book will particularly appeal to professionals and academics interested in medicine, business, and organizational studies.

Success factors related to the implementation of change initiatives are well documented and discussed in the management literature, but they are seldom studied in healthcare organizations engaged in multiple strategic change initiatives. The purpose of this study was to identify key success factors related to implementation of change initiatives based on rich qualitative data gathered from health leader interviews at two large health systems implementing multiple change initiatives. In-depth personal interviews with 61 healthcare leaders in the two large systems were conducted and inductive qualitative analysis was employed to identify success factors associated with 13 change initiatives. Results from this analysis were compared to success factors identified in the literature, and generalizations were drawn that add significantly to the management literature, especially to that in the healthcare sector. Ten specific success factors were identified for the implementation of change initiatives. The top three success factors were (1) culture and values, (2) business processes, and (3) people and engagement. Two of the identified success factors are unique to the healthcare sector and not found in the literature on change models: service quality and client satisfaction (ranked fourth of 10) and access to information (ranked ninth). Results demonstrate the importance of human resource functions, alignment of culture and values with change, and business processes that facilitate effective communication and access to information to achieve many change initiatives. The responses also suggest opportunities for leaders of healthcare organizations to more formally recognize the degree to which various change initiatives are dependent on one another.

During the past decade the hospital industry has made profound organizational changes, including the extensive consolidation of hospitals through merger and the formation of hospital systems. Although the rate of hospital system acquisitions may be slowing, the local presence of hospital systems is growing. Locally concentrated systems have been formed by both for-profit and nonprofit hospitals. Researchers have tended to ignore acquisitions or have portrayed system formation as primarily an issue of hospital ownership conversion, thereby focusing on the expansion of national, for-profit systems. This has left a large gap in policymakers' understanding of how locally concentrated systems may affect patient care and competition.

Centers of excellence-specialized programs within healthcare institutions which supply exceptionally high concentrations of expertise and related resources centered on particular medical areas and delivered in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary fashion-afford many advantages for healthcare providers and the populations they serve. To achieve full value from centers of excellence, proper assembly is an absolute necessity, but guidance is somewhat limited. This effectively forces healthcare providers to pursue establishment largely via trial-and-error, diminishing opportunities for success. Successful development of a center of excellence first requires the acquisition of a detailed understanding of the delivery model and its benefits. Then, concerted actions must be taken on a particular series of administrative and clinical fronts, treating them in prescribed manners to afford synergies which yield an exceptionally high level of care. To reduce hardships associated with acquiring this rather elusive knowledge, remedy shortcomings in the literature, and potentially bolster community health broadly, this article presents information and insights gleaned from Willis-Knighton Health System's extensive experience assembling and operating centers of excellence. This work is intended to educate and enlighten, but most importantly, supply guidance which will permit healthcare establishments to replicate noted processes to realize their own centers of excellence. Centers of excellence have the ability to dramatically enhance the depth and breadth of healthcare services available in communities. Given the numerous mutual benefits afforded by this delivery model, it is hoped that the light shed by this article will help healthcare providers better understand centers of excellence and be more capable and confident in associated development initiatives, affording greater opportunities for themselves and their patient populations.

Background: The Institute of Medicine's 2001 report Crossing the Quality Chasm argued for fundamental redesign of the U.S. health care system. Six years later, many health care organizations have embraced the report's goals, but few have succeeded in making the substantial transformations needed to achieve those aims. Purposes: This article offers a model for moving organizations from short-term, isolated performance improvements to sustained, reliable, organization-wide, and evidence-based improvements in patient care. Methodology: Longitudinal comparative case studies were conducted in 12 health care systems using a mixed-methods evaluation design based on semistructured interviews and document review. Participating health care systems included seven systems funded through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Pursuing Perfection Program and five systems with long-standing commitments to improvement and high-quality care. Findings: Five interactive elements appear critical to successful transformation of patient care: (1) Impetus to transform; (2) Leadership commitment to quality; (3) Improvement initiatives that actively engage staff in meaningful problem solving; (4) Alignment to achieve consistency of organization goals with resource allocation and actions at all levels of the organization; and (5) Integration to bridge traditional intra-organizational boundaries among individual components. These elements drive change by affecting the components of the complex health care organization in which they operate: (1) Mission, vision, and strategies that set its direction and priorities; (2) Culture that reflects its informal values and norms; (3) Operational functions and processes that embody the work done in patient care; and (4) Infrastructure such as information technology and human resources that support the delivery of patient care. Transformation occurs over time with iterative changes being sustained and spread across the organization. Practice Implications: The conceptual model holds promise for guiding health care organizations in their efforts to pursue the Institute of Medicine aims of fundamental system redesign to achieve dramatically improved patient care.

Retail clinics--while innovative--can no longer be considered a new model of healthcare delivery, as an increasing number of hospitals and health systems now own them. The purpose of this article is to explore the extent to which hospital systems are satisfied with their ownership of retail clinics. In terms of operational challenges, respondents to our survey, administered to representatives from 19 health systems, were relatively satisfied with clinic staffing and their relationship with the retailers regarding lease terms, store locations, and shopper demographics. They expressed mostly neutral levels of satisfaction with regulations and laws related to retail clinics and low satisfaction with insurance reimbursement and clinics' seasonal patterns. The two areas that received the lowest respondent satisfaction ratings were patient volume and response to marketing initiatives. When asked to share their perceptions of their organization's satisfaction with various strategic aspects of retail clinic ownership, respondents revealed that the clinics were achieving several important strategic goals, such as improved access, increased referrals, defense against competitors, and increased brand exposure. They indicated overall dissatisfaction with profitability and cost-reduction outcomes. We conclude that serious operational challenges and strategic threats must be overcome if retail clinics are to be a successful service line for hospitals and health systems.

The Fort Lewis maternity project begun in Tacoma, Washington in 1941, was considered a pioneering project that met the identified maternal/child health care needs of enlisted military families. From the outset, local medical leaders as well as Children’s Bureau advisors intended that the project would provide physician-managed pregnancy as well as hospital births and that public health nursing would play a critical role in this maternal/child initiative. The project proved so successful that the model of care established under this program was reinterpreted to meet similar needs for military families in other states as America entered World War II.

Context: Policy discussions about improving the U. S. health care system increasingly recognize the need to strengthen its capacities for delivering public health services. A better understanding of how public health delivery systems are organized across the United States is critical to improvement. To facilitate the development of such evidence, this article presents an empirical method of classifying and comparing public health delivery systems based on key elements of their organizational structure. Methods: This analysis uses data collected through a national longitudinal survey of local public health agencies serving communities with at least 100,000 residents. The survey measured the availability of twenty core public health activities in local communities and the types of organizations contributing to each activity. Cluster analysis differentiated local delivery systems based on the scope of activities delivered, the range of organizations contributing, and the distribution of effort within the system. Findings: Public health delivery systems varied widely in organizational structure, but the observed patterns of variation suggested that systems adhere to one of seven distinct configurations. Systems frequently migrated from one configuration to another over time, with an overall trend toward offering a broader scope of services and engaging a wider range of organizations. Conclusions: Public health delivery systems exhibit important structural differences that may influence their operations and outcomes. The typology developed through this analysis can facilitate comparative studies to identify which delivery system configurations perform best in which contexts.

Background Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to offer superior surgical outcomes for most abdominal surgical procedures. However, there is hardly any evidence on surgical outcomes with patient risk stratification. This study aimed to compare outcomes of common laparoscopic and open surgical procedures for varying illness severity. Methods A retrospective analysis of surgical outcomes for six commonly performed surgical procedures including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, reflux surgery, gastric bypass surgery, ventral hernia repair, and colectomy was performed using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database/Resource Manager (CDB/RM). The 3-year discharge data for the six commonly performed laparoscopic surgical procedures were analyzed for outcome measures including observed mortality, overall patient morbidity, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, 30-day readmissions, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs. Results In this study, 208,314 patients underwent one of six common surgical procedures by either the open or the laparoscopic approach. Overall, the laparoscopic approach showed significantly lower mortality, reduced morbidity, fewer ICU admissions and 30-day readmissions, shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced hospital costs for all the procedures. At stratification by illness severity, the laparoscopic group showed better or comparable surgical outcomes across all the illness severity groups. However, the observed mortality was comparable for the minor and moderate severity patients between laparoscopic and open surgery for most procedures. The 30-day readmission rate for major/extreme severity patients was comparable between the two groups for most surgical procedures. Conclusions This study demonstrated the superiority of laparoscopy over conventional open surgery across all illness severity risk groups for common surgical procedures. The results in general show that laparoscopic surgery is safe, efficacious, and cost-effective compared with open surgery and suggest that laparoscopic surgery should be the procedure of choice for all common surgical procedures, regardless of illness severity.

The journey to Magnet® provides the ideal platform to demonstrate the impact of nursing and how strong interprofessional partnerships advance care and problem solving in an increasingly complex healthcare arena. Nurses in Magnet organizations use collaborative partnerships to forge innovative solutions, improve nursing care across the continuum, advance health in populations, effect desired change, and improve outcomes.