Search

In recent years, spurred by developments in evidence-informed medicine, a movement to strengthen evidence-informed managerial decision making in healthcare organizations has emerged in the United States and in other countries. The drivers of this movement include demands by payers and consumer groups for improved quality of care, increased operational efficiency; and greater accountability from healthcare organizations. But numerous barriers to managers' use of evidence in decision making exist, including time pressures, perceived threats to autonomy, preference for colloquial knowledge based on individual experiences, difficulty accessing the relevant evidence base, reliance on external consultants (and others) to determine the quality of the information, and lack of resources. To help managers overcome these barriers, we developed the Informed Decisions Toolbox. It provides tools to help managers efficiently perform the six key steps in the evidence-informed approach to decision making: (1) framing the management question, (2) finding sources of information, (3) assessing the accuracy of the information, (4) assessing the applicability of the information, (5) assessing the actionability of the evidence, and (6) determining if the information is adequate. To build an organizational environment conducive to evidence-informed decision making, we suggest four leadership-driven strategies: (1) recognize and respond to the growing demand for accountability as a strategic issue, (2) establish organizational structures and processes for knowledge transfer, (3) build a questioning organizational culture, and (4) build organizational research capabilities. With organizational support, managers who use the tools presented in the Informed Decisions Toolbox will be able to take control of the decision-making process, will be less reliant on colloquial evidence and consultants, and will be better able to improve the performance of their organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many developed countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, the relationships between doctors and hospital managers are strained. The purposes of this article are to examine survey data from the united States and the United Kingdom on donor-manager relationships and to identify the sources of strain common to both countries as well as those particular to each country's health system. The two countries exhibited many similarities. A very high proportion of respondents from both countries identified external factors-such as governmental budget cuts, pressure from third parties to increase physicians' workload, and the turbulence of the policy environment-as important barriers to improving doctor-manager relationships. Other common sources of strain were concerns over resource availability and the relative power of doctors and managers. Sources of relationship tension particular to each country were also found. Substantial divergence of opinion was expressed with respect to internal factors that affect doctor-manager relationships. Respondents from the United States were more negative than those from the United Kingdom in their ratings of teamwork and communication between doctors and managers, and they were also less likely to have confidence in the medical staff. Respondents from the United Kingdom were more likely to believe that hospital management is driven more by financial than clinical priorities. Managers can implement several strategies to improve donor-manager relationships, including greater organizational transparency in decision making more frequent communication between managers and donors; and more physician involvement in decision making, especially with regard to important resource-related decisions, and in organizational governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite being adopted by a large number of hospitals, the relationship between Lean management and hospital performance is mixed and not well understood., Purpose: We examined the relationships between Lean and hospital financial performance, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction in a large national sample of hospitals, controlling for relevant organizational and market factors., Methodology/approach: A mixed effects linear regression analysis was performed to assess the relationships between adoption of Lean and 10 measures of hospital performance using data from 1,152 hospitals that responded to the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement in Hospitals. Hospital performance, organizational, and market data over the period 2011-2015 come from the 2015 American Hospital Association Annual Hospital Survey and the respective annual Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Cost Report, CMS Hospital Compare, CMS MEDPAR, and the CMS Hospital Service Area File., Results: Lean adoption was significantly associated at alpha < .05, with lower Medicare spending per beneficiary (b = -.005, p = .027). None of the other nine associations were statistically significant, although eight of them were in the predicted direction., Conclusion: Lean adoption is not associated with most measures of hospital performance. It is likely Lean implementation varies greatly across hospitals. Future research should examine the relationships among the various dimensions of Lean implementation and performance., Practice Implications: If Lean management is to contribute to hospital performance improvement, leaders must be highly cognizant of what "adoption of Lean" actually means in their hospital. Although limited, single-unit Lean initiatives in an emergency room or other patient care unit may improve performance on some unit-specific measures, improvement on hospital-wide measures of performance requires a broad, sustained commitment to the implementation of Lean practices and tools.