Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9987352

Decentralizing unit coordinator services.

Abstract

Restructuring unit coordinator/unit clerk services by decentralizing this staff and having them report directly to nurse managers can totally integrate them into the functions and activities of a patient-centered team. This article describes how nurse managers can evaluate the feasibility of decentralizing unit coordinators in their own institutions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Nelson. 1998. Decentralizing unit coordinator services.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9987352/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Specific clinical competencies for managing care: views of residency directors and managed care medical directors.

CONTEXT: Although medical educators recognize the need to prepare physicians to work effectively in managed care environments, managed care is often perceived negatively by academic physicians. Curricular reform has been hampered by a failure to seek agreement about specific clinical competencies that are important to both managed care directors and medical educators. OBJECTIVES: To identify specific clinical competencies in the managed care setting and to assess agreement between residency directors and managed care medical directors on the importance of these competencies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Surveys (1998-1999) of a national sample of 59 residency directors involved in managed care training programs (response rate, 94%); a sample of 186 residents in these programs and 258 matched control residents (response rate, 77%); and national samples of 147 managed care organization (MCO) medical directors (response rate, 67%) and 140 primary care residency program directors in areas of high MCO penetration (response rate, 73%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Specific clinical managed care tasks as defined by residency directors; self-reported confidence in performing these tasks by sample residents vs control residents; and importance of these tasks as rated by MCO medical directors and residency program directors. RESULTS: Twenty-six specific clinical managed care tasks were identified by the residency directors. Residents who participated in managed care training were significantly more confident than their counterparts in performing 20 of the 26 tasks (P<.01 for all). Residency directors and MCO medical directors viewed 65% of these tasks as important to patient care during the next 5 years. Of the 10 tasks most highly rated by residency directors and MCO medical directors, 9 were the same, addressing time management, ethics, case management, practice guidelines, cost-effective clinical decision making, referral management, disease management, patient satisfaction, and clinical epidemiology. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that residency directors and managed care medical directors value mastery of many of the same specific clinical competencies in managed care. Previously documented negative attitudes toward managed care among academic physicians may obscure an underlying concordance about the skills essential to managing the health of populations. JAMA. 2000;284:1093-1098

Administrative Personnel↗

National survey of internal medicine residency program directors regarding problem residents.

CONTEXT: Internal medicine residency training is demanding and residents can experience a wide variety of professional and personal difficulties. A problem resident is defined by the American Board of Internal Medicine as "a trainee who demonstrates a significant enough problem that requires intervention by someone of authority." Data are sparse regarding identification and management of such residents. OBJECTIVE: To gain more understanding of the prevalence, identification, management, and prevention of problem residents within US internal medicine residency programs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mailed survey of all 404 internal medicine residency program directors in the United States in October 1999, of whom 298 (74%) responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of problem residents; type of problems encountered; factors associated with identification and management of problem residents. RESULTS: The mean point prevalence of problem residents during academic year 1998-1999 was 6.9% (SD, 5.7%; range, 0%-39%), and 94% of programs had problem residents. The most frequently reported difficulties of problem residents were insufficient medical knowledge (48%), poor clinical judgment (44%), and inefficient use of time (44%). Stressors and depression were the most frequently identified underlying problems (42% and 24%, respectively). The most frequent processes by which problem residents were discovered included direct observation (82%) and critical incidents (59%). Chief residents and attending physicians most frequently identified problem residents (84% and 76%, respectively); problem residents rarely identified themselves (2%). Many program directors believed that residents who are from an underrepresented minority, are international medical graduates, or are older than 35 years are at increased risk of being identified as a problem resident (P<.05). Program directors believed that frequent feedback sessions (65%) and an assigned mentor for structured supervision (53%) were the most helpful interventions. CONCLUSION: Nearly all internal medicine residency programs in this sample had problem residents, whose presenting characteristics and underlying issues were diverse and complex. JAMA. 2000;284:1099-1104

Administrative Personnel↗