Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10266632

Solve problems using comparative analysis.

D L Schryver
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Comparative analysis is a methodology that may be applied to problem solving in medical group practice. Whenever problems are complex enough to warrant more than applying either a subjective or quantitative approach, comparative analysis can be utilized to provide a systematic in-depth examination. By applying this technique, a medical group manager can analytically examine and compare all plausible alternatives for the purpose of identifying the optimal course of action.

Explore related subjects

Decision MakingGroup PracticeHumansProblem SolvingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D L Schryver. Solve problems using comparative analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10266632/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

An overview of protective action decision-making for a nuclear power plant emergency.

Protection of the public in a nuclear power plant emergency requires decision-makers to balance the time requirements from two chains of events: the events associated with a radiological release and the events involved with the response to that release. The management of these events is distributed among personnel at the nuclear plant, in the local community, and in state and federal agencies. All of these parties must coordinate their response to the emergency to assure that timely and effective protective response can be made by the risk area population. This article describes the process by which protective action recommendations (PARs) are developed in nuclear power plant emergency exercises and provides recommendations from research on emergency response in other types of natural and technological hazards.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2000

Caring and cost: the challenge for physician advocacy.

How should physicians respond to the growing tension between care and cost? One option is to reinforce the ideal of doing everything to further the best interests of the individual patient. Others, however, have argued that because health care resources are shared and limited, physicians should consciously participate in rationing by saying "no" to patients' requests for some marginally beneficial services. But even physicians who endorse the idea of rationing wonder whether patient-physician relationships could ever survive a frank admission of rationing at the bedside. This article explores the idea that caring about costs can be brought to the bedside in a way that will sustain trust among patients and the public. By illustrating a hypothetical case and the ensuing conversation between a physician and her patient, a mode of "proportional" patient advocacy is presented in which physicians can remain forceful agents for patient good while acting within a framework that admits to the boundaries of responsible budgets for health care needs.

Decision Making↗