استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Aim To report revolutionary reorganization of academic gastroenterology division from COVID-19 pandemic surge at metropolitan Detroit epicenter from 0 infected patients on March 9, 2020, to > 300 infected patients in hospital census in April 2020 and > 200 infected patients in April 2021. Setting GI Division, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, has 36 GI clinical faculty; performs > 23,000 endoscopies annually; fully accredited GI fellowship since 1973; employs > 400 house staff annually since 1995; tertiary academic hospital; predominantly voluntary attendings; and primary teaching hospital, Oakland-University-Medical-School. Methods This was a prospective study. Expert opinion. Personal experience includes Hospital GI chief > 14 years until 2020; GI fellowship program director, several hospitals > 20 years; author of > 300 publications in peer-reviewed GI journals; committee-member, Food-and-Drug-Administration-GI-Advisory Committee > 5 years; and key hospital/medical school committee memberships. Computerized PubMed literature review was performed on hospital changes and pandemic. Study was exempted/approved by Hospital IRB, April 14, 2020. Results Division reorganized patient care to add clinical capacity and minimize risks to staff of contracting COVID-19 infection. Affiliated medical school changes included: changing “live” to virtual lectures; canceling medical student GI electives; exempting medical students from treating COVID-19-infected patients; and graduating medical students on time despite partly missing clinical electives. Division was reorganized by changing “live” GI lectures to virtual lectures; four GI fellows temporarily reassigned as medical attendings supervising COVID-19-infected patients; temporarily mandated intubation of COVID-19-infected patients for esophagogastroduodenoscopy; postponing elective GI endoscopies; and reducing average number of endoscopies from 100 to 4 per weekday during pandemic peak! GI clinic visits reduced by half (postponing non-urgent visits), and physical visits replaced by virtual visits. Economic pandemic impact included temporary, hospital deficit subsequently relieved by federal grants; hospital employee terminations/furloughs; and severe temporary decline in GI practitioner’s income during surge. Hospital temporarily enhanced security and gradually ameliorated facemask shortage. GI program director contacted GI fellows twice weekly to ameliorate pandemic-induced stress. Divisional parties held virtually. GI fellowship applicants interviewed virtually. Graduate medical education changes included weekly committee meetings to monitor pandemic-induced changes; program managers working from home; canceling ACGME annual fellowship survey, changing ACGME physical to virtual site visits; and changing national conventions from physical to virtual. Conclusion Reports p rofound and pervasive GI divisional changes to maximize clinical resources devoted to COVID-19-infected patients and minimize risks of transmitting infection.

Based on a 2008 cross-sectional survey of 582 hospital CEOs in the United States, this study reports the findings of two logistic regression models designed to identify CEO and hospital characteristics associated with Member and Fellow status in the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE). The purpose of the study was to understand the personal and organizational characteristics of those CEOs who choose to be Members and Fellows of a professional association such as ACHE. The results showed that most (74 percent) of the respondents considered ACHE to be their primary professional association. The results also revealed that a master's degree in health administration [beta = .88, t(427) = 5.35, p < .0001], male gender [beta = .59, t(427) = 3.01, p = .002], and financial incentives provided by the parent hospital [beta = .25, t(427) = 2.73, p = .006] were statistically positively linked with Member status in ACHE. A master's degree in health administration [beta = .81, t(424) = 5.79, p < .0001], male gender [beta = .39, t(424) = 2.25, p = .02], and age [beta = .02, t(424) 2.32, p = .02] were also statistically positively associated with Fellow status in ACHE. Notably, organizational factors such as size, geographic location, for-profit status, and financial strength of the hospital do not seem to play an important role in the CEOs' decision to become a Member or Fellow of ACHE. The implication of these findings is that membership and fellowship at a professional association are influenced by characteristics of the individual, and incentives provided by employers can encourage employees to get involved with their professional associations.

Trends in healthcare reveal that increasing numbers of physicians prefer to work directly with hospitals-whether through employment models, new or revived partnership structures, or other such \"deals\". Meanwhile, hospital executives are vigorously seeking ways to create win-win arrangements that satisfy both parties-models that will ensure medical coverage for the hospital, along with revenue gains and cost savings when possible. Add to this a competitive environment, physician shortages, and high regulatory activity and healthcare reform, and the path to clinical, operational, and financial viability in the context of a hospital/physician partnership can be a challenging one. Models such as The physician enterprise and co-management agreements are gaining popularity, each with distinct benefits. With market forces dynamically changing, along with accountable care, it is time for hospitals, health systems, and physicians to prioritize their partnering relationships, a strategy that is now key to achieving success in the future...and that's a trend that's likely to continue far into the years ahead.

Acquisition, merger, affiliation are helpful constructs for healthcare leaders as they consider options for bringing together provider organizations. Those terms may be too limiting for some organizations, however, as the author's organization learned in its recent affiliation with a large regional provider system in northeastern Wisconsin. Shawano Medical Center and ThedaCare officially sealed their integration in January 2011. They followed four principles that helped shape their journey and led to positive results: 1. paired leadership, 2. mutual trust, 3. dispassionate expertise, and 4. transparent communication. The companies enjoyed important successes and learned valuable lessons: improved patient care, merging two cultures, continuing communication, and operational issues. The biggest challenge is helping people move beyond history. It's a new day, but for many people years of competition and its chilling fallout still prompt deep emotions.

Background: The development of 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) in Ontario necessitated the re-organization of Community Care Access Centres (CCACs). The achievement of LHIN objectives was contingent upon the organizations responsible for home and long-term care placement being aligned within the LHIN geographic boundaries. This re-alignment required 42 provincial organizations to re-structure, integrate and reduce to 14. Assessment of problem: This project was focused on the amalgamation of two CCACs in the Waterloo Wellington LHIN. Both were distinctly different due to their organizational evolution, the composition of the region and leadership approach. The different organizational cultures, if not managed properly, could result in a derailing of several current projects that were underway and were also key to the overall health system transformation agenda. A literature search provided a plethora of critiques of organizational change approaches and practical suggestions. Of particular relevance was a report to the Royal Commission on Health Care in 2002 that authenticates the dismal success in health care to meet change objectives. The project included a joint planning day for the leadership teams of the two organizations followed by an Organizational Readiness Assessment conducted by the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation (CCHSA). Results: Both activities brought the leadership and staff of Waterloo and Wellington together, started the integration process and solicited staff participation. A follow-up survey of the leadership teams revealed the effectiveness of the project in advancing integration between the two organizations and recognizing organizational cultural differences. The CCHSA Organizational Readiness Assessment process was viewed as an effective means for advancing the integration of the two organizations, particularly as it relates to allowing the staff groups to define for themselves the benefits of the merger. Lessons and messages: The lack of hard evidence on the benefits of a merger could have been problematic in terms of resistance to change if the CCHSA process had not been used. The readiness assessment report provided 49 recommendations that served as baseline information needed for the design of a change strategy that is anchored in knowledge of variation in organizational culture, practice, communications, client service and leadership style.

An affiliation can help a healthcare provider prepare for the challenges of healthcare reform, the rapidly changing landscapes of the commercial insurance industry, and the public's expectations about service and quality. UC Davis Medical Center, a 645-bed tertiary hospital in Sacramento, California, with many hospital-based clinics and a community-based group of primary care clinics, has developed a number of principles for affiliation. These principles are based on its experience in legal and financial affiliations with an academic practice group, with individual and small groups of primary care physicians, and with community hospitals around oncology services linked with U.C. Davis' National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. This article offers a process for evaluating the appropriateness of an affiliation. The chances for a successful affiliation improve if each party has indicated the value it hopes to derive and how to measure that value, has communicated with all affected constituents, and has an agreed-upon method for resolving disputes.

The main objective of this study was to document details of both individual and institutional financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) reported by the authors of clinical trials. An additional objective was to assess the predictors of having at least one author reporting any FCOI. We used a sample of randomized controlled trials from a previous cross-sectional survey and included the trials, which reported at least one FCOI disclosure. We categorized the types of disclosed FCOI as grant, employment income, personal fees, nonmonetary support, drug or equipment supplies, patent, stocks, and other types. We collected data on the characteristics of the included RCTs, of the authors, and of the reported FCOI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to assess the predictors of having at least one author reporting any FCOI. All 108 included RCTs reported being funded, with 58% reporting funding by a private-for-profit source. Out of 1,687 authors, 814 (48%) reported at least one, and a median of 2, FCOI disclosures. Of the 814 reporting disclosures, far more reported individual FCOIs (99%) than institutional FCOIs (6%). The most commonly reported individual FCOI subtypes were grant (49%), personal fees (48%), and employment income (22%). Of the 99% of disclosures that included the source of FCOI, a private-for-profit entity provided the funds in 85%. Reporting about the relation of the FCOI source's to the product investigated in the trial, the timing of FCOI, and monetary value of FCOI was limited. Reporting of FCOIs proved most strongly associated with author affiliation being an academic institution (OR = 2.981; 95% CI: 2.415-3.680) and trial funding from entity other than a private-for-profit entity (OR = 2.809; 95% CI: 2.274-3.470). Approximately half of the trial authors report individual FCOIs, often three or more, but seldom provide details related to source's relation to the trial, or the timing and monetary value of the FCOI.

Background Research productivity is critical to academic surgery and essential for advancing surgical knowledge and evidence-based practice. We aim to determine if surgeon affiliation with top US universities/hospitals (TOPS) is associated with increased research productivity measured by numbers of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed (PMIDs). Methods A bibliometric analysis was performed for PMIDs. Affiliated authors who published in trauma surgery (TS), surgical critical care (SCC), acute care surgery (ACS), and emergency general surgery (EGS) were evaluated for publications between 2015 and 2019, and lifetime productivity. Our analysis included 3443 authors from 443 different institutions. Our main outcome was PMIDs of first author (FA) and senior author (SA) in each field (2015-2019) and total lifetime publications. Results Significant differences exist between PMIDs from TOPS vs non-TOPS in FA-TS (1.34 vs 1.23, P = .001), SA-TS (1.71 vs 1.46, P < .001), total SA-PMIDs (44.10 vs 26.61, P < .001), and SA-lifetime PMIDs (90.55 vs 59.03, P < .001). There were no significant differences in PMIDs for FA or SA-SCC, FA or SA-ACS, FA or SA-EGS, FA-total PMIDs 2015-2019, or FA-lifetime PMIDs (P > .05 for all). Conclusion There were significantly higher TS PMIDs among FAs and SAs affiliated with top US institutions in 2015-2019, along with higher total PMIDs (2015-2019) and lifetime PMIDs. These findings are of significance to future graduate medical applicants and academic surgeons who need to make decisions about training and future career opportunities.

There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny.

Objective: The authors sought to determine whether unexpected gaps existed in Scopus’s author affiliation indexing of publications written by the University of Nebraska Medical Center or Nebraska Medicine (UNMC/NM) authors during 2014.Methods: First, we compared Scopus affiliation identifier search results to PubMed affiliation keyword search results. Then, we searched Scopus using affiliation keywords (UNMC, etc.) and compared the results to PubMed affiliation keyword and Scopus affiliation identifier searches.Results: We found that Scopus’s records for approximately 7% of UNMC/NM authors’ publications lacked appropriate UNMC/NM author affiliation identifiers, and many journals’ publishers were supplying incomplete author affiliation information to PubMed.Conclusions: Institutions relying on Scopus to track their impact should determine whether Scopus’s affiliation identifiers will, in fact, identify all articles published by their authors and investigators.