Search results

Flatlined lifts the veil of secrecy on twenty-first century health care and delves into the realities of good people caught in a bad medical system. Dr. Guy L. Clifton, a practitioner as well as a policy advocate, reveals first-hand accounts of needless tragedy, such as the young man who died after a car wreck for lack of a bed in a qualified hospital and the surgeon who was dejected by the scarcity of resources needed to enable him to perform heart surgery on an uninsured man. Arguing that a lack of coordinated care and quality medical practice benchmarks result in high levels of redundancy a

Flatlined lifts the veil of secrecy on twenty-first century health care and delves into the realities of good people caught in a bad medical system. Dr. Guy L. Clifton, a practitioner as well as a policy advocate, reveals first-hand accounts of needless tragedy, such as the young man who died after a car wreck for lack of a bed in a qualified hospital and the surgeon who was dejected by the scarcity of resources needed to enable him to perform heart surgery on an uninsured man. Arguing that a lack of coordinated care and quality medical practice benchmarks result in high levels of redundancy and ineffectiveness, Clifton proposes that the key to reducing health care costs, improving quality, and financially protecting the uninsured, is to reduce wastefulness, and offers a solution for achieving success. Flatlined sounds the warning call: By 2018 Medicare and Medicaid will consume about one-third of the federal budget. American businesses now pay three times as much of their payroll for health care as global competitors, expected to worsen as health care grows at twice the rate of the U.S. economy. Based on his years of experience in policy and medicine, Clifton offers an attainable solution through the development of an American Medical Quality System.

In response to King's article on cohesion, this author submitted a critique, "The Essence of Military Group Cohesion" (2007), based on 20 years of research. The critique noted that King had set up several strawmen and presented a narrow focus. Furthermore, the critique introduced the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion as a more widely useful approach. The Model was further articulated in "Key Questions and Challenges to the Standard Model of Military Group Cohesion" (2011) and "The Misconceived Construct of Task Cohesion" (2015). This current article describes major conceptual and measurement efforts leading up to the development of the Model, critiques and expansions of the Model, and needed future research to refine the Model as well as combine cohesion with other key variables such as motivation, combatant capacity, and leadership to more fully explain variation in key military outcome variables such as unit performance and retention.

A prior special issue of this journal attempts to broaden the perspective on military cohesion. While such broadening is desirable, the lead issue author incorporates only a narrow portion of relevant literature, makes misleading assertions, does not distinguish the difference between conducting studies and carrying out social scientific research, and fails to appreciate the advances made in scalable microlevel cohesion research. This commentary notes the limited literature cited, summarizes the distinction between a study and science, and suggests issues and concepts to be addressed to make a stronger start in research on military cohesion at the meso- and macrolevels.

Group cohesion is very basic to the human condition and derived from the most fundamental nature of humans as found in the terminology of I am, I go, and I do. Group cohesion is found in the relationships of group members and their perceived capacity for joint action to achieve their missions. For some time the construct of task cohesion has been incorrectly or ambiguously included in the conceptualization of group cohesion. However, task cohesion, if used at all in the context of military group cohesion, should be considered part of the set of performance criteria as in cohesive task performance rather than as part of the cohesion predictor space. The author requests future researchers adopt this preferred word usage. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

Group cohesion is very basic to the human condition and derived from the most fundamental nature of humans as found in the terminology of I am, I go, and I do. Group cohesion is found in the relationships of group members and their perceived capacity for joint action to achieve their missions. For some time the construct of task cohesion has been incorrectly or ambiguously included in the conceptualization of group cohesion. However, task cohesion, if used at all in the context of military group cohesion, should be considered part of the set of performance criteria as in cohesive task performance rather than as part of the cohesion predictor space. The author requests future researchers adopt this preferred word usage.

The Standard Model has become the primary approach to military group cohesion. Yet the key theoretical drivers that explain where the Model came from have not been well articulated. This article addresses that deficiency by presenting those main drivers in past research and the key questions derived from the research that guided development of the Model. Additionally, recent research has brought several potential challenges to the Standard Model, which also have not been well articulated or presented together in one place. This effort addresses those theoretical problems as well as logically deduced challenges, which in all have been labeled by the author as the Horizon Problem, Individual Differences Problem, Roman Road Problem, Reductionist Problem, Life Cycle Problem, Frame Problem, Common Goal Problem, and Action Problem. Some limits to the Standard Model are noted in the process of showing how the Model can accommodate these challenges.

In July 2006, Armed Forces & Society published an article by Anthony King, "The Word of Command: Communication and Cohesion in the Military." This commentary takes exception to certain statements and conclusions in King's article, and in the process, sketches a standard model of military group cohesion. This model is based on social integration in the military and is composed of both primary group cohesion (peer and leader bonding) and secondary group cohesion (organizational and institutional bonding). The essence of peer bonding is given as social relationships based on trust and teamwork. The standard model is presented as a tool to sensitize ethnographers about what to look for when observing military interactions and to help them interpret what they see.

In July 2006, Armed Forces & Society published an article by Anthony King, "The Word of Command: Communication and Cohesion in the Military." This commentary takes exception to certain statements and conclusions in King's article, and in the process, sketches a standard model of military group cohesion. This model is based on social integration in the military and is composed of both primary group cohesion (peer and leader bonding) and secondary group cohesion (organizational and institutional bonding). The essence of peer bonding is given as social relationships based on trust and teamwork. The standard model is presented as a tool to sensitize ethnographers about what to look for when observing military interactions and to help them interpret what they see. Adapted from the source document.