Suchergebnisse

In 1996, French authorities—committed to developing an innovative, decentralized style of public intervention in a country with a reputation for administrative conservatism and a historical bias toward centralization—created the Regional Hospital Agencies. The author asks whether these agencies exemplify the modernization of French public administration. A survey of all 26 such agencies indicates that they did introduce novel management practices and do, in fact, illustrate New Public Management " à la française."

1. Introduction: the quality imperative - origins and challenges -- pt. I. Perspectives. 2. Information systems and quality in health care -- 3. Quality management in French hospitals: from implicit concern to radical change -- pt. II. Practices. 4. Coordination and patient care outcomes -- 5. Implementing continuous quality improvement -- 6. Evaluation units in French hospitals: experiences and limitations -- 7. Quality management at the University of Pennsylvania health system -- pt. III. Potential. 8. Evaluating quality outcomes against best practice: a new frontier -- 9. Rethinking quality: complexity and context in health care -- 10. The quality imperative: lessons and potential -- Notes on contributors.

International audience ; Context The strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient. Objective To assess general practitioners' (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs' perceptions of their qualities and usefulness. Method A telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice in France. Results A large majority (84.1%–88.5%) of respondents (n = 503; response rate of 56%) reported that they never used public comparative indicators, available in the mass media or on government and non-government Internet sites, to influence their patients' hospital choices. The vast majority of GPs rely mostly on traditional sources of information when choosing a hospital. At the same time, this study highlights favourable opinions shared by a large proportion of GPs regarding several aspects of hospital quality indicators, such as their good qualities and usefulness for other purposes. In sum, the results show that GPs make very limited use of hospital quality indicators based on a consumer choice paradigm but, at the same time, see them as useful in ways corresponding more to the usual professional paradigms , including as a means to improve quality of care.

International audience ; Context The strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient. Objective To assess general practitioners' (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs' perceptions of their qualities and usefulness. Method A telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice in France. Results A large majority (84.1%–88.5%) of respondents (n = 503; response rate of 56%) reported that they never used public comparative indicators, available in the mass media or on government and non-government Internet sites, to influence their patients' hospital choices. The vast majority of GPs rely mostly on traditional sources of information when choosing a hospital. At the same time, this study highlights favourable opinions shared by a large proportion of GPs regarding several aspects of hospital quality indicators, such as their good qualities and usefulness for other purposes. In sum, the results show that GPs make very limited use of hospital quality indicators based on a consumer choice paradigm but, at the same time, see them as useful in ways corresponding more to the usual professional paradigms , including as a means to improve quality of care.

International audience Context The strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient. Objective To assess general practitioners' (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs' perceptions of their qualities and usefulness. Method A telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice in France. Results A large majority (84.1%–88.5%) of respondents (n = 503; response rate of 56%) reported that they never used public comparative indicators, available in the mass media or on government and non-government Internet sites, to influence their patients' hospital choices. The vast majority of GPs rely mostly on traditional sources of information when choosing a hospital. At the same time, this study highlights favourable opinions shared by a large proportion of GPs regarding several aspects of hospital quality indicators, such as their good qualities and usefulness for other purposes. In sum, the results show that GPs make very limited use of hospital quality indicators based on a consumer choice paradigm but, at the same time, see them as useful in ways corresponding more to the usual professional paradigms , including as a means to improve quality of care.

International audience ; Context The strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient. Objective To assess general practitioners' (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs' perceptions of their qualities and usefulness. Method A telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice in France. Results A large majority (84.1%–88.5%) of respondents (n = 503; response rate of 56%) reported that they never used public comparative indicators, available in the mass media or on government and non-government Internet sites, to influence their patients' hospital choices. The vast majority of GPs rely mostly on traditional sources of information when choosing a hospital. At the same time, this study highlights favourable opinions shared by a large proportion of GPs regarding several aspects of hospital quality indicators, such as their good qualities and usefulness for other purposes. In sum, the results show that GPs make very limited use of hospital quality indicators based on a consumer choice paradigm but, at the same time, see them as useful in ways corresponding more to the usual professional paradigms , including as a means to improve quality of care.

International audience ; Objective To find out which are the emerging views on hospital performance and to analyze how these views vary among hospital stakeholders.Methods Study setting: Three hospital stakeholder groups (physicians, caregivers, and administrative staff) in a large Paris teaching hospital.Study design: A case study combining a qualitative (interviews of 80 key hospital stakeholders and a survey of hospital staff), and a quantitative analysis (a questionnaire composed of 4 theoretical dimensions, 13 sub-dimensions, 66 items) with triangulation of the results.Results Hospital stakeholders assign greatest importance to the human relations dimension, i.e., organizational climate (professional and public service values) and quality of work life. These values attract a high degree of consensus among stakeholders (no statistical difference between physicians, caregivers and administrative staff).Conclusions Our findings challenge the mainstream view that competing values underlie hospital performance. Currently, views are to some extent shared among different stakeholder groups. A reason for this could be the need to form a more united front in the face of recent reforms. This common emphasis on professional and public service values could be the basis for formulating management priorities in teaching hospitals in order to improve performance.

International audience ; Objective To find out which are the emerging views on hospital performance and to analyze how these views vary among hospital stakeholders.Methods Study setting: Three hospital stakeholder groups (physicians, caregivers, and administrative staff) in a large Paris teaching hospital.Study design: A case study combining a qualitative (interviews of 80 key hospital stakeholders and a survey of hospital staff), and a quantitative analysis (a questionnaire composed of 4 theoretical dimensions, 13 sub-dimensions, 66 items) with triangulation of the results.Results Hospital stakeholders assign greatest importance to the human relations dimension, i.e., organizational climate (professional and public service values) and quality of work life. These values attract a high degree of consensus among stakeholders (no statistical difference between physicians, caregivers and administrative staff).Conclusions Our findings challenge the mainstream view that competing values underlie hospital performance. Currently, views are to some extent shared among different stakeholder groups. A reason for this could be the need to form a more united front in the face of recent reforms. This common emphasis on professional and public service values could be the basis for formulating management priorities in teaching hospitals in order to improve performance.

International audience ; Objective To find out which are the emerging views on hospital performance and to analyze how these views vary among hospital stakeholders.Methods Study setting: Three hospital stakeholder groups (physicians, caregivers, and administrative staff) in a large Paris teaching hospital.Study design: A case study combining a qualitative (interviews of 80 key hospital stakeholders and a survey of hospital staff), and a quantitative analysis (a questionnaire composed of 4 theoretical dimensions, 13 sub-dimensions, 66 items) with triangulation of the results.Results Hospital stakeholders assign greatest importance to the human relations dimension, i.e., organizational climate (professional and public service values) and quality of work life. These values attract a high degree of consensus among stakeholders (no statistical difference between physicians, caregivers and administrative staff).Conclusions Our findings challenge the mainstream view that competing values underlie hospital performance. Currently, views are to some extent shared among different stakeholder groups. A reason for this could be the need to form a more united front in the face of recent reforms. This common emphasis on professional and public service values could be the basis for formulating management priorities in teaching hospitals in order to improve performance.