Suppr超能文献

管理学术医疗中心系统:评估并在不同治理方法中进行选择。

Governing Academic Medical Center Systems: Evaluating and Choosing Among Alternative Governance Approaches.

作者信息

Chari Ramya, O'Hanlon Claire, Chen Peggy, Leuschner Kristin, Nelson Christopher

机构信息

R. Chari is policy researcher, RAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6805-0974. C. O'Hanlon is assistant policy researcher, RAND Corporation, and a doctoral candidate, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, California; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6398-5845. P. Chen is physician policy researcher, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. K. Leuschner is research communications analyst, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. C. Nelson is senior political scientist, RAND Corporation, and professor of policy analysis, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, California.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2018 Feb;93(2):192-198. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001903.

Abstract

The ability of academic medical centers (AMCs) to fulfill their triple mission of patient care, medical education, and research is increasingly being threatened by rising financial pressures and resource constraints. Many AMCs are, therefore, looking to expand into academic medical systems, increasing their scale through consolidation or affiliation with other health care systems. As clinical operations grow, though, the need for effective governance becomes even more critical to ensure that the business of patient care does not compromise the rest of the triple mission. Multi-AMC systems, a model in which multiple AMCs are governed by a single body, pose a particular challenge in balancing unity with the needs of component AMCs, and therefore offer lessons for designing AMC governance approaches. This article describes the development and application of a set of criteria to evaluate governance options for one multi-AMC system-the University of California (UC) and its five AMCs. Based on a literature review and key informant interviews, the authors identified criteria for evaluating governance approaches (structures and processes), assessed current governance approaches using the criteria, identified alternative governance options, and assessed each option using the identified criteria. The assessment aided UC in streamlining governance operations to enhance their ability to respond efficiently to change and to act collectively. Although designed for UC and a multi-AMC model, the criteria may provide a systematic way for any AMC to assess the strengths and weaknesses of its governance approaches.

摘要

学术医疗中心(AMC)履行患者护理、医学教育和研究这三项使命的能力,正日益受到不断上升的财务压力和资源限制的威胁。因此,许多AMC正寻求扩展为学术医疗系统,通过与其他医疗保健系统合并或联合来扩大规模。然而,随着临床业务的增长,有效的治理需求变得更加关键,以确保患者护理业务不会损害三项使命中的其他方面。多AMC系统是一种由单一机构管理多个AMC的模式,在平衡统一性与各组成AMC的需求方面带来了特殊挑战,因此为设计AMC治理方法提供了经验教训。本文描述了一套用于评估一个多AMC系统——加利福尼亚大学(UC)及其五个AMC治理选项的标准的制定与应用。基于文献综述和关键信息提供者访谈,作者确定了评估治理方法(结构和流程)的标准,使用这些标准评估当前的治理方法,确定替代治理选项,并使用确定的标准评估每个选项。该评估帮助UC简化治理操作,以增强其有效应对变化和集体行动的能力。尽管这些标准是为UC和多AMC模式设计的,但它们可能为任何AMC提供一种系统的方式来评估其治理方法的优缺点。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验