Greer A L
Soc Sci Med. 1984;18(10):809-17. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90148-5.
The expansion of medical technology in hospitals is commonly asserted to be a result of the preferences of medical doctors translated into organizational policies as a result of professional dominance in health care organizations. This paper examines the theoretical and empirical bases for hypotheses of professional dominance and the utility of these hypotheses in explaining hospital decisions to adopt new medical technologies. The analysis, which is based on 5 years of data collection including 378 personal interviews at 25 U.S. hospitals, indicates that appropriate application of the concept requires specification of the type of physician exercising influence and of the hospital decision systems within which it is exercised. Specification is needed because neither physicians nor hospitals are unitary categories when considered in relation to technology adoptions . In this paper, four categories of physicians are identified: community generalists, community specialists, referral specialists and hospital-based specialists. Members of these categories exhibit different skills and interests, different relationships to hospitals and hospital technologies, and differential access to the resources of organization influence including two unrelated to professional dominance. To understand the exercise of physician influence, it is further useful to differentiate three decision systems which review and pass judgement on different types of hospital technologies. They are: the medical-individualistic, the fiscal-managerial and the strategic-institutional. The three decision systems make decisions in accord with different values and goals and display different decision structures and dynamics. Ironically , the physicians who most clearly possess the resources of influence associated with professional dominance are centrally involved in only one of the three systems.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
医院医疗技术的扩张通常被认为是医生偏好的结果,由于医生在医疗保健组织中的专业主导地位,这些偏好被转化为组织政策。本文探讨了专业主导假说的理论和实证基础,以及这些假说在解释医院采用新医疗技术决策方面的效用。该分析基于5年的数据收集,包括在美国25家医院进行的378次个人访谈,结果表明,要恰当应用这一概念,需要明确施加影响的医生类型以及施加影响时所处的医院决策系统。之所以需要明确,是因为在考虑技术采用时,医生和医院都不是单一的类别。本文确定了四类医生:社区全科医生、社区专科医生、转诊专科医生和医院专科医生。这些类别的成员展现出不同的技能和兴趣、与医院及医院技术的不同关系,以及获取组织影响力资源的不同途径,其中两种途径与专业主导无关。为理解医生影响力的发挥,进一步区分三种对不同类型医院技术进行审查和评判的决策系统也很有用。它们是:医疗个人主义型、财务管理型和战略制度型。这三种决策系统依据不同的价值观和目标做出决策,呈现出不同的决策结构和动态变化。具有讽刺意味的是,最明显拥有与专业主导相关影响力资源的医生,仅在这三种系统中的一种中发挥核心作用。(摘要截选至250词)