Search

Background: Since the early 1980s all European countries have given priority to reforming the management of health services. A distinctive feature of these reforms has also been the drive to co-opt professionals themselves into the management of services, taking on full time or part time (hybrid) management or leadership roles. However, although these trends are well documented in the literature, our understanding of the nature and impact of reforms and how they are re-shaping the relationship between medicine and management remains limited. Most studies have tended to be nationally specific, located within a single discipline and focused primarily on describing new management practices. This article serves as an Introduction to a special issue of BMC Health Services Research which seeks to address these concerns. It builds on the work of a European Union funded COST Action (ISO903) which ran between 2009 and 2013, focusing specifically on the changing relationship between medicine and management in a European context.Main Text: Prior to describing the contributions to the special issue, this Introduction sets the scene by exploring four main questions which have characterised much of the recent literature on medicine and management. First is the question of what we understand by the changing relationship between medicine and management and in particular which this means for the emergence of so called 'hybrid' clinical leader roles? A second question concerns the forces that have driven change, in particular those relating to the wider project of management reforms. Third, we raise questions of how medical professionals have responded to these changes and what factors have shaped their responses. Lastly we consider what some of the outcomes of greater medical involvement in management and leadership might be, both in terms of intended and unintended outcomes.Conclusions: The paper concludes by summarising the contributions to the special issue and highlighting the need to extend research in this area by focusing more on comparative dimensions of change. It is argued that future research would also benefit theoretically by drawing together insights from health policy and management literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospital governance is broadening its orientation from cost and production controls towards 'improving performance on clinical outcomes'. Given this new focus one might assume that doctors are drawn into hospital management across OECD countries. Hospital performance in terms of patient health, quality of care and efficiency outcomes is supposed to benefit from their involvement. However, international comparative evidence supporting this idea is limited. Just a few studies indicate that there may be a positive relationship between medical doctors being part of hospital boards, and overall hospital performance. More importantly, the assumed relationship between these so-called doctor managers and hospital performance has remained a 'black-box' thus far. However, there is an increasing literature on the implementation of quality management systems in hospitals and their relation with improved performance. It seems therefore fair to assume that the relation between the involvement of doctors in hospital management and improved hospital performance is partly mediated via quality management systems. The threefold aim of this paper is to 1) perform a quick scan of the current situation with regard to doctor managers in hospital management in 19 OECD countries, 2) explore the phenomenon of doctor managers in depth in 7 OECD countries, and 3) investigate whether doctor involvement in hospital management is associated with more advanced implementation of quality management systems.Methods: This study draws both on a quick scan amongst country coordinators in OECD's Health Care Quality Indicator program, and on the DUQuE project which focused on the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals.Results: This paper reports two main findings. First, medical doctors fulfil a broad scope of managerial roles at departmental and hospital level but only partly accompanied by formal decision making responsibilities. Second, doctor managers having more formal decision making responsibilities in strategic hospital management areas is positively associated with the level of implementation of quality management systems.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that doctors are increasingly involved in hospital management in OECD countries, and that this may lead to better implemented quality management systems, when doctors take up managerial roles and are involved in strategic management decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: How future doctors might be educated and trained in order to meet the population and system needs of countries is currently being debated. Incorporation of a broad range of capabilities, encompassed within categories of management and, increasingly, leadership, form part of this discussion. The purpose of this paper is to outline a framework by which countries' progress in this area might be assessed and compared.Methods: Key databases and journals related to this area were reviewed. From relevant articles potential factors impacting on the incorporation of aspects of management and leadership within medical education and training were identified. These factors were tested via an online survey during 2013 with six members of a European Association of doctors who promote medical involvement in hospital management, including members from countries less represented in the health management literature.Results: A framework for analysing how management and leadership education is being approached within different systems of healthcare is developed and presented.Conclusions: More systematic work across a wider range of countries is needed if we are to have a better understanding of how countries within and beyond Europe are approaching and progressing the education of doctors in management and leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some studies have analyzed the association of health care systems variables, such as health service resources or expenditures, with amenable mortality, but the association of types of health care systems with the decline of amenable mortality has yet to be studied. The present study examines whether specific health care system types are associated with different time trend declines in amenable mortality from 2000 to 2014 in 22 European OECD countries.Methods: A time trend analysis was performed. Using Nolte and McKee's list, age-standardized amenable mortality rates (SDRs) were calculated as the annual number of deaths over the population aged 0-74 years per 100,000 inhabitants. We classified health care systems according to a deductively generated classification by Böhm. This classification identifies three dimensions that are not entirely independent of each other but follow a clear order: the regulation dimension is first, followed by the financing dimension and finally service provision. We performed a hierarchical semi-log polynomial regression analysis on the annual SDRs to determine whether specific health care systems were associated with different SDR trajectories over time.Results: The results showed a clear decline in SDRs in all 22 health care systems between 2000 and 2014 although at different annual changes (slopes). Regression analysis showed that there was a significant difference among the slopes according to provision dimension. Health care systems with a private provision exhibited a slowdown in the decline of amenable mortality over time. It therefore seems that ownership is the most relevant dimension in determining a different pattern of decline in mortality.Conclusions: All countries experienced decreases in amenable mortality between 2000 and 2014; this decline seems to be partially a reflection of health care systems, especially when affected by the provision dimension. If the private ownership is maintained or promoted by health systems, these findings might be considered when thinking about regulation policies to control factors that might influence health care performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]