RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
RAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec;55 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):1049-1061. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13582.
We explore if there are ways to characterize health systems-not already revealed by secondary data-that could provide new insights into differences in health system performance. We sought to collect rich qualitative data to reveal whether and to what extent health systems vary in important ways across dimensions of structural, functional, and clinical integration.
Interviews with 162 c-suite executives of 24 health systems in four states conducted through "virtual" site visits between 2017 and 2019.
Exploratory study using thematic comparative analysis to describe factors that may lead to high performance.
We used maximum variation sampling to achieve diversity in size and performance. We conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with system executives, covering such topics as market context, health system origin, organizational structure, governance features, and relationship of health system to affiliated hospitals and POs.
Health systems vary widely in size and ownership type, complexity of organization and governance arrangements, and ability to take on risk. Structural, functional, and clinical integration vary across systems, with considerable activity around centralizing business functions, aligning financial incentives with physicians, establishing enterprise-wide EHR, and moving toward single signatory contracting. Executives describe clinical integration as more difficult to achieve, but essential. Studies that treat "health system" as a binary variable may be inappropriately aggregating for analysis health systems of very different types, at different degrees of maturity, and at different stages of structural, functional, and clinical integration. As a result, a "signal" indicating performance may be distorted by the "noise."
Developing ways to account for the complex structures of today's health systems can enhance future efforts to study systems as complex organizations, to assess their performance, and to better understand the effects of payment innovation, care redesign, and other reforms.
我们探索是否有方法来描述卫生系统——这些方法尚未通过二次数据揭示——可以为卫生系统绩效差异提供新的见解。我们试图收集丰富的定性数据,以揭示卫生系统在结构、功能和临床整合的各个维度上是否以及在多大程度上存在重要差异。
2017 年至 2019 年期间,通过“虚拟”现场访问,对来自四个州的 24 个卫生系统的 162 位首席执行官进行了 162 次访谈。
使用主题比较分析进行探索性研究,以描述可能导致高绩效的因素。
我们使用最大变异抽样来实现规模和绩效的多样性。我们对系统高管进行了深入、半结构化的访谈,涵盖了市场背景、卫生系统起源、组织结构、治理特点以及卫生系统与附属医院和 PO 的关系等主题。访谈进行了转录、编码和分析。
卫生系统在规模和所有制类型、组织和治理安排的复杂性以及承担风险的能力方面差异很大。系统之间的结构、功能和临床整合差异很大,围绕集中业务职能、调整医生的财务激励、建立全企业范围内的电子病历系统以及朝着单一签约合同的方向发展开展了大量活动。高管们将临床整合描述为更难实现,但却是必不可少的。将“卫生系统”视为二进制变量的研究可能不适当地将非常不同类型、成熟度不同、结构、功能和临床整合程度不同的卫生系统进行聚合分析。因此,指示绩效的“信号”可能会因“噪声”而扭曲。
开发方法来解释当今卫生系统的复杂结构,可以增强未来研究卫生系统作为复杂组织的努力,评估其绩效,并更好地理解支付创新、护理重新设计和其他改革的效果。