Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Brown

Publications and source records attributed to M Brown.

At least 1,045 records · Page 58Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Efficiency, new equity capital enable systems to compete.

Because of limited cash, sponsors of some community and religious hospitals have sought to sell or lease their institutions to a not-for-profit (NFP) system or to a for-profit system. A number of national alliances address the capital formation problem of NFP institutions. Until now they have been almost exclusively concerned with acquiring less costly debt. Without new equity capital, market influence is difficult to obtain. Even well-managed voluntary systems face a serious threat from well-capitalized investor-owned systems. Increased competition among hospitals and physicians will force future advantages to those who have capital. It will also restrict funding of certain programs and services by voluntary enterprises. In anticipation of this, various forms of partnerships have developed with investor-owned systems. To regain the initiative as the premier sponsors of health care, religious and other voluntary systems must go beyond merely competing in their markets to acquiring weaker institutions. They also must revitalize private giving and excel in efficiency to offset threats from ambulatory, day-care operations and from high-technology hospitals. Structural changes in the industry can be predicted, including the following: The trend toward integration for production, financing, and marketing will continue. Public market equity capital will be increasingly used to finance medical practice. Hospitals that sell their equity values will establish service foundations. National alliances will continue, but strictly local systems will maintain operation. Investor-owned systems will move increasingly into high-technology tertiary care.

Capital Financing↗
PubMedDate not supplied

High-performing physician executives.

Physician leadership extends beyond traditional clinical disciplines to hospital administration, group practice management, health policy making, management of managed care programs, and many business positions. What kind of person makes a good physician executive? What stands out as the most important motivations, attributes, and interests of high-performing physician executives? How does this compare with non-physician health care executives? Such questions have long been high on the agenda of executives in other industries. This article builds on existing formal assessments of leadership attributes of high-performing business, government, and educational executives and on closer examination of health care executives. Previous studies looked at the need for innovative, entrepreneurial, energetic, community-oriented leaders for positions throughout health care. Traits that distinguish excellence and leadership were described by Brown and McCool.* That study characterized successful leaders in terms of physical strengths (high energy, good health, and propensity for hard work), mental strengths (creativity, intuition, and innovation), and organizational strengths (mission orientation, vision, and entrepreneurial spirit). In this investigation, a subset of health care executives, including physician executives, was examined more closely. It was initially assumed that successful physician executives exhibit many of the same positive traits as do nonphysician executives. This assumption was tested with physician leaders in a range of administrative and managerial positions. We also set out to identify key differences between physician and nonphysician executives. Even with our limited exploration, it seems to us that physician executives probably do differ from nonphysician executives.

Creativity↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Unfairly judged.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effect of anti-epileptic drug monotherapy and polypharmacy on visual and auditory evoked potentials.

Previous reports have suggested that some anticonvulsants may prolong somatosensory and auditory evoked potential latencies. We compared pattern-reversal visual and brainstem auditory evoked potentials in normal controls, patients on monotherapy, and patients taking polypharmacy. Visual evoked potential amplitudes were less in seizure patients, and P1 latencies were longer in epileptics on polypharmacy than controls. Absolute latencies of brainstem auditory evoked potentials were longer in polypharmacy patients than in controls or monotherapy patients. I-III, III-V, and I-V interpeak latencies were greater in polypharmacy patients than in those on monotherapy or controls. These findings suggest that anticonvulsants may affect conduction along visual and auditory pathways, and that antiepileptic drug polypharmacy and monotherapy may differ in their effects.

Adolescent↗