Search

Health care institutions are witnessing a 'new normality', which profoundly reshapes the strategic and management challenges faced by health professionals in their attempt to achieve excellence in the design and delivery of care. This 'new normality' triggers a transformation of conventional managing models and leadership styles, which have proved to be unfit with the changed attributes of the external and internal contexts of health care organizations. The 'new normal' leadership style relies on the ability of leaders to make sense out of the new challenges that are faced by health care organizations and on their capability to act managerially, sticking to an empowering approach which enables followers. However, the transformation of conventional leadership style is impossible if a rethinking of training activities and learning experiences delivered to health professionals is missing. The article provides an overview of the issues that health leaders and managers encounter in the 'new normality' of health care, identifying several unanswered questions which should be addressed to thrive in the changed landscape of health services' delivery.

Being largely considered a human right, healthcare needs leaders who are able to make choices and to set directions. Following the recommendations expressed by Gilmartin and D'Aunno's review and roadmap compiled in 2008, today, it is important to acknowledge researchers' contributions to outline this landscape. The realist review of 77 publications answered questions such as "what works, for whom, and in which circumstances" highlighting: the effectiveness and acceptance of transformational and collaborative approaches; professionalism, expertise, and good task delegation within operational teams; distributed leadership, relationships, and social responsibility at a systemic level. The relevancy and need of leadership development programs, framed within a wider strategy, emerged. Nonetheless, gaps still exist and require further investigation: particular needs in public vs. private contexts; professionals' and women's differentiating characters; generational gaps; associations between leadership and recruitment HR practices research; how (and if) leaders (should) influence the organizational culture and values; and developing countries specific challenges. Also, a greater proportion of relevant findings should be drawn by empirical and more rigorous studies. Finally, a major attention could be paid to interactions happening at the team, organizational, and systemic level among different leaders and among leaders, followers and external actors.

Background: Lean seems to be the next revolution for a better, improved, value-based healhcare. In the last 15 years Lean has been increasingly adapted and adopted in healthcare. Accordingly, Lean healthcare has been developing into a major strand of research since the early 2000s. The aim of this work is to present a comprehensive overview of the main issues highlighted by research on implementation of Lean in a complex contest such as the healthcare one., Method: Comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to identify empirical and theoretical articles published up to September 2013. Thematic analysis was performed in order to extract and synthesis data., Findings: 243 articles were selected for analysis. Lean is best understood as a means to increase productivity. Hospital is the more explored setting, with emergency and surgery as the pioneer departments. USA appears to be the leading country for number of applications. The theoretical works have been focused mainly on barriers, challenges and success factors. Sustainability, framework for measurement and critical appraisal remain underestimated themes. Evaluations of "system wide approach" are still low in number., Conclusion: Even though Lean results appear to be promising, findings so far do not allow to draw a final word on its positive impacts or challenges when introduced in the healthcare sector. Scholars are called to explore further the potentiality and the weaknesses of Lean, above all as for the magnitude of investments required and for the engagement of the whole organization it represents increasingly strategic choice, whilst health professionals, managers and policy makers could and should learn from research how to play a pivotal role for a more effective implementation of lean in different health contexts., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The culture of New Public Management has promoted the diffusion of strategic management tools throughout Public Healthcare Organisations (PHOs). There is consensus that better strategic planning tools are required to achieve higher levels of organisational performance. This paper provides evidence and understanding of the emergent uses and scope of strategic planning in PHOs, in order to answer three research questions: (i) has the New Public Management approach changed the organisational culture of PHOs in terms of how they adopt, diffuse, and use strategic planning documents? (ii) how coherent are strategic planning documents in PHOs? and (iii) what are the main purposes of strategic documents in PHOs?, Methods: An analysis was carried out in three Italian Local Health Authorities. We analysed the number and types of formal strategic documents adopted between 2004 and 2012, evaluating their degree of coherence and coordination, their hierarchy, their degree of disclosure, and the consistency of their strategic goals. A content analysis was performed to investigate overlap in terms of content and focus, and a qualitative analysis was carried out to study and represent the relationships between documents., Results: The analysis showed that a rich set of strategic documents were adopted by each PHO. However, these are often uncoordinated and overlap in terms of content. They adopt different language and formats for various stakeholders. The presence of diverse external drivers may explain the divergent focus, priorities and inconsistent goals in the strategic documents. This planning complexity makes it difficult to determine how the overall goals and mission of an organisation are defined and made visible., Conclusions: The evidence suggests that PHOs use a considerable number of strategic documents. However, they employ no clear or explicit overarching strategy currently, and strategic planning appears to be externally oriented. All the documents communicate similar topics to different stakeholders, although they use different language to answer to the different expectations of each stakeholder. Therefore, strategic planning and plans seem to be driven by neo-institutional approaches, as they are means to build consensus and negotiate ground for strategic actions, rather than means to identify strategic choices and priorities.

Recent studies have highlighted the importance of management in the health care sector. Positive correlations have been found between clinical and economic performance. Although there is still controversy regarding what kind of management and which managers should lead health care organizations and health systems, we now have interesting evidence to analyze. Starting with a systematic review of the literature, this article presents and discusses the streams of knowledge regarding how management can influence the quality and sustainability of health systems and organizations. Through the analysis of 37 studies, we found that the performance of health care systems and organizations seems to be correlated with management practices, leadership, manager characteristics, and cultural attributes that are associated with managerial values and approaches. There is also evidence that health care organizations run by doctors perform better than others. Finally, we provide a roadmap that indicates how the relationship between the management and performance of health systems and organizations can be further and more effectively investigated., (Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Over the last two decades, health policy and governance in Italy have undergone decentralisation at the regional level. The central government was expected to play a guiding role in defining minimum care standards and controlling health expenditures at the regional level in order to keep the entire Italian National Health System (INHS) on track. Although health performance trends have been consistent across regions, public health expenditures have been variable and contributed to a cumulative deficit of 38 billion Euros from 2001 to 2010. To address the deficit, the government called for a resolution introducing a partial bail-out plan and later institutionalised a process to facilitate a turnaround. The upturn started with the development of a formal regional turnaround plan that proposed strategic actions to address the structural determinants of costs. The effectiveness of this tool was widely questioned, and many critics suggested that it was focused more on methods to address short-term issues than on the long-term strategic reconfiguration that is required for regional health systems to ultimately address the structural causes of deficits.We propose an interpretative framework to understand the advantages and disadvantages of turnaround plans, and we apply the findings to the development of policy recommendations for the structure, methods, processes and contexts of the implementation of this tool., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)