Remedial education: can this doctor be saved? (1/69)

In the first two years of the program 30 physicians have completed the program. A list of the distribution of specialties/practice areas [table: see text] served is provided in Table 1. The data reveal that the distribution of practice areas corresponds approximately to the distribution of physicians practicing in the state. The UF C.A.R.E.S Program provides a great benefit to physicians and their patients. It provides an atmosphere of professional collaboration and encouragement to address specific educational needs and underscores a commitment to providing continuing medical education, meaningful doctor-to-doctor collaboration, better patient care, and reflects a medical model of diagnosis and treatment of specific problems.  (+info)

Altogether now? Professional differences in the priorities of primary care groups. (2/69)

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the similarities or differences with which Primary Care Group (PCG) Board members view the relative importance of the three functions with which they are charged, or how representative these views are of local primary care teams in general. This project explores the priorities of medical and nursing PCG Board members in relation to those of local General Practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses they represent. METHODS: Postal questionnaires were sent to GPs (n=236) and practice nurses (n= 137); structured telephone interviews were carried out with PCG Board members (n=61) in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove. RESULTS: There are large differences between the views of GPs and those of their nursing colleagues on how PCG Board members should determine priorities in their work. There are also marked differences in the priorities of PCG Boards (of whom the majority are GPs) and non-Board member GPs. Whereas around two-thirds of PCG Board members believe that improving health generally and reducing inequalities in particular are the most important tasks before them, this view is not shared by most GPs in the same localities, who are generally more concerned about commissioning services. There is some doubt among GPs generally about the suitability of PCG Board members as a vehicle for the tasks they have been set, and this doubt is also found among PCG Board members themselves. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities of PCG Board members of different disciplines need to be aligned in order that they have a clear focus on the tasks before them. PCG Boards must also have priorities that are consistent with the local practitioners who elected them. Effective systems of communication will need to be developed between PCG Board members, Health Authorities and individual Primary Care Groups. Local flexibility is essential to the success of Primary Care Groups, but tackling inequalities in health must always be at the forefront of their role.  (+info)

Uneasy alliances: managed care plans formed by safety-net providers. (3/69)

Health care providers that have traditionally served the poor are forming their own managed care plans, often in alliance with local safety-net peers. These alliances make it easier to raise needed capital, increase the pool of likely enrollees, and enable plans to benefit from efficiencies of scale. At the same time, however, the alliances often are undermined by conflicts of interest among the different sponsors and between the sponsors and the plan. This paper suggests that these plans are most likely to do well when the state makes special efforts to help and when plans have the leadership and financial reserves to take advantage of their supportive state policies.  (+info)

Community accountability among hospitals affiliated with health care systems. (4/69)

The shift from local, community-based hospitals to more complex, multilevel delivery systems raises questions about the community accountability exercised by hospitals. A national sample of community hospitals is the basis of this study, which examines the ways that community accountability is exercised by the governing boards of hospitals affiliated with health care systems and how such institutions compare with hospitals not affiliated with a health care system. Results indicate that hospitals display community accountability in a variety of ways. Boards of system-affiliated hospitals exercise community accountability most strongly in their information monitoring and reporting activities, whereas free-standing hospitals exercise community accountability through the structural and compositional attributes of their boards. Further, hospitals affiliated with different types of systems vary in the style and degree of accountability they demonstrate.  (+info)

Devolution to democratic health authorities in Saskatchewan: an interim report. (5/69)

BACKGROUND: In 1995 Saskatchewan adopted a district health board structure in which two-thirds of members are elected and the rest are appointed. This study examines the opinions of board members about health care reform and devolution of authority from the province to the health districts. METHODS: All 357 members of Saskatchewan district health boards were surveyed in 1997; 275 (77%) responded. Analyses included comparisons between elected and appointed members and between members with experience as health care providers and those without such experience, as well as comparisons with hypotheses about how devolution would develop, which were advanced in a 1997 report by another group. RESULTS: Most respondents felt that devolution had resulted in increased local control and better quality of decisions. Ninety-two percent of respondents believed extensive reforms were necessary and 83% that changes made in the previous 5 years had been for the best. However, 56% agreed that there was no clear vision of the reformed system. A small majority (59%) perceived health care reform as having been designed to improve health rather than reduce spending, contrary to a previous hypothesis. Many respondents (76%) thought that boards were legally responsible for things over which they had insufficient control, and 63% perceived that they were too restricted by rules laid down by the provincial government, findings that confirm the expectation of tensions surrounding the division of authority. Respondents with current or former experience as health care providers were less likely than nonprovider respondents to believe that nonphysician health care providers support decisions made by the regional health boards (45% v. 63%, p = 0.02), a result that confirmed the contention that the role of health care providers on the boards would be a source of tension. INTERPRETATION: Members of Saskatchewan district health boards supported the general goals of health care reform and believed that changes already undertaken had been positive. There were few major differences in views between appointed and elected members and between provider and nonprovider members. However, tensions related to authority and representation will require resolution.  (+info)

Changes in the structure, composition, and activity of hospital governing boards, 1989-1997: evidence from two national surveys. (6/69)

Hospital governance arrangements affect institutional policymaking and strategic decisions and can vary by such organizational attributes as ownership type/control, size, and system membership. A comparison of two national surveys shows how hospital governing boards changed in response to organizational and environmental pressures between 1989 and 1997. The magnitude and direction of changes in (1) board structure, composition, and selection; (2) CEO-board relations; and (3) board activity, evaluation, and compensation are examined for the population of hospitals and for different categories of hospitals. The findings suggest that hospital boards are engaging in selective rather than wholesale change to meet the simultaneous demands of a competitive market and traditional institutional orientations to community, the disenfranchised, and philanthropic service. Results also suggest parallel increases in collaboration between boards and CEOs and in board scrutiny of CEOs.  (+info)

Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based participatory research partnership in Detroit. (7/69)

This article reports the results of a formative evaluation of the first 4 years of the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (URC), a community-based participatory research partnership that was founded in 1995 with core funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several organizations are members of this partnership, including a university, six community-based organizations, a city health department, a health care system, and CDC. The Detroit URC is a strong partnership that has accomplished many of its goals, including the receipt of over $11 million in funding for 12 community-based participatory research projects during its initial 4 years. Detroit URC Board members identified a number of facilitating factors for their growth and achievements, such as (1) developing a sound infrastructure and set of processes for making decisions and working together, (2) building trust among partners, (3) garnering committed and active leadership from community partners, and (4) receiving support from CDC. Board members also identified a number of ongoing challenges, including organizational constraints, time pressures, and balancing community interests in interventions and academic research needs. Overall, the Detroit URC represents a partnership approach to identifying community health concerns and implementing potential solutions.  (+info)

Decentralization of health systems in Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and the Philippines: a comparative analysis of decision space. (8/69)

This study reviews the experience of decentralization in four developing countries: Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and the Philippines. It uses two analytical frameworks to describe and compare the types and degrees of decentralization in each country. The first framework specifies three types of decentralization: deconcentration, delegation and devolution. The second framework uses a principal agent approach and innovative maps of 'decision space' to define the range of choice for different functions that is transferred from the centre to the periphery of the system. The analysis finds a variety of different types and degrees of decentralization, with the Philippines demonstrating the widest range of choice over many functions that were devolved to local government units. The least choice was transferred through delegation to an autonomous health service in Ghana. Uganda and Zambia display variations between these extremes. There was insufficient evidence of the impact of decentralization to assess how these differences in 'decision space' influenced the performance of each health system. The authors suggest that this is a major area for future research.  (+info)