Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Government”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed1986

Models of governance in multihospital systems. Implications for hospital and system-level decision-making.

This study utilizes data from a national survey of 159 multihospital systems in order to describe the types of governance structures currently being utilized, and to compare the policy making process for various types of decisions in systems with different approaches to governance. Survey results indicate that multihospital systems most often use one of three governance models. Forty-one percent of the systems (including 33% of system hospitals) use a parent holding company model in which there is a system-wide corporate governing board and separate governing boards for each member hospital. Twenty-two percent of systems in the sample (but 47% of all system hospitals) utilize what we have termed a modified parent holding company model in which there is one system-wide governing board, but advisory boards are substituted for governing boards at the local hospital level. Twenty-three percent of the sampled systems (including 11% of system hospitals) use a corporate model in which there is one system-wide governing board but no other governing or advisory boards at either the divisional, regional or local hospital levels. A comparison of systems using these three governance approaches found significant variation in terms of system size, ownership and the geographic proximity of member hospitals. In order to examine the relationship between alternative approaches to governance and patterns of decision-making, the three model types were compared with respect to the percentages of systems reporting that local boards, corporate management and/or system-wide corporate boards have responsibility for decision-making in a number of specific issue areas. Study results indicate that, regardless of model type, corporate boards are most likely to have responsibility for decisions regarding the transfer, pledging and sale of assets; the formation of new companies; purchase of assets greater than $100,000; changes in hospital bylaws; and the appointment of local board members. In contrast corporate management is relatively uninvolved in these issues, again regardless of governance model type. There is substantial variation in the locus of decision-making responsibility by governance model type for a variety of other issues, however, including: hospital-level service additions and deletions; operating and capital budgets; medical staff privileges, hospital-level long-range planning; hospital CEO performance evaluation and the appointment of hospital CEOs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Decision Making, Organizational↗
PubMed2006

An inquiry into good hospital governance: a New Zealand-Czech comparison.

BACKGROUND: This paper contributes to research in health systems literature by examining the role of health boards in hospital governance. Health care ranks among the largest public sectors in OECD countries. Efficient governance of hospitals requires the responsible and effective use of funds, professional management and competent governing structures. In this study hospital governance practice in two health care systems - Czech Republic and New Zealand - is compared and contrasted. These countries were chosen as both, even though they are geographically distant, have a universal right to 'free' health care provided by the state and each has experienced periods of political change and ensuing economic restructuring. Ongoing change has provided the impetus for policy reform in their public hospital governance systems. METHODS: Two comparative case studies are presented. They define key similarities and differences between the two countries' health care systems. Each public hospital governance system is critically analysed and discussed in light of D W Taylor's nine principles of 'good governance'. RESULTS: While some similarities were found to exist, the key difference between the two countries is that while many forms of 'ad hoc' hospital governance exist in Czech hospitals, public hospitals in New Zealand are governed in a 'collegiate' way by elected District Health Boards. These findings are discussed in relation to each of the suggested nine principles utilized by Taylor. CONCLUSION: This comparative case analysis demonstrates that although the New Zealand and Czech Republic health systems appear to show a large degree of convergence, their approaches to public hospital governance differ on several counts. Some of the principles of 'good governance' existed in the Czech hospitals and many were practiced in New Zealand. It would appear that the governance styles have evolved from particular historical circumstances to meet each country's specific requirements. Whether or not current practice could be improved by paying closer attention to theoretical models of 'good governance' is debatable.

Journal Article↗