hospital management research papers

Interviews with Outstanding Authors (2024)

In 2024, many JHMHP authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding authors who have been making immense efforts in their research fields, with a brief interview of their unique perspective and insightful view as authors.

Read More>>

Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy is officially indexed by Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

On April 18, 2024, Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy (JHMHP) received an official notice that it had been selected for coverage in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Web of Science™ Core Collection. Articles published after 2022, beginning with 6(1), will be included.

Reviewer of the Month (2024)

In 2024, JHMHP reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.

Annual Report of JHMHP 2023

Greetings from Prof. Jiechun Gao and the Editorial Office of JHMHP!

In 2023, with joint effort and support from all contributors, JHMHP made steady progress with publication of 25 articles, authors mostly from USA. According to the Google Analytics, JHMHP enjoyed all together 85,697 pageviews and visitors about 47,993 worldwide, mainly from USA. For more details, please check at the following report.

Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy 2022 CiteScore Released: 0.6

We are pleased to announce that the Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy (JHMHP) has received its 2022 CiteScore: 0.6, ranking 230 out of 270 journals in the Health Policy category.

Furthermore, we are delighted to highlight the remarkable achievements made by all AME journals in the CiteScore ranking.

Healthcare Finance: Drivers and Strategies to Improve Performance (ongoing)

This series on "Healthcare Finance: Drivers and Strategies to Improve Performance" is edited by Dr. Robert Weech-Maldonado and Dr. Nancy Borkowski from University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Birmingham, AL, USA. The main purpose of this series is to explore the most recent evidence on trends in healthcare finance, the relationship between healthcare strategies and financial performance, and the influence of healthcare policy on performance.

Shaping Tomorrow's Healthcare Systems: Key Stakeholders' Expectations and Experiences

This series on “Shaping Tomorrow's Healthcare Systems: Key Stakeholders' Expectations and Experiences” is edited by Dr. Stephen J. O'Connor, Dr. Nancy Borkowski and Dr. Katherine A. Meese. The authors are proud to present this special edition to highlight and contribute to improve healthcare systems.

System Level Interventions to Improve Access to Prevention and Treatment of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders (ongoing))

This series on "System Level Interventions to Improve Access to Prevention and Treatment of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders" is edited by Dr. Erick Guerrero from I-Lead Institute, USA. The main purpose of this series is to present the state of science in evidence-based structural interventions to improve access to prevention and treatment of mental health and substance use disorders.

Health Systems and Health in World Cities: Challenges for the Future (ongoing)

This series on "Health Systems and Health in World Cities: Challenges for the Future" is edited by Dr. Michael K. Gusmano from Lehigh University, USA and Dr. Victor G. Rodwin from New York University, USA.

Implementation of transparent peer review at Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy (JHMHP)

With a commitment to openness and accountability, and to increase the level of transparency throughout our peer review process, our editorial office has decided to implement a transparent peer review process as an option for all manuscripts submitted to JHMHP from March 19, 2020.

• About jhmhp
• Editor-in-Chief
• Editorial Board

Manuscript Submission

• Online Submission
• Submit Multimedia Files

AME Editing Service

• English Editing
• Translation

Reprint & Permission

Advertising, general editorial enquiries:, copyright related contact:, commercial sales contact (reprints, advertising, etc.):, jhmhp chinese edition more, 高效能卫生领导者培养的成功关键因素, 战略规划——医疗保健系统业务视角, 医院管理和卫生政策——南非观点一则.

• Online First
• Grant Funded

Spatial and visual comparison analysis of health disparities in London neighbourhoods: the case of Southwark and Lambeth

Spatial disparities in flood vulnerability in new york city, impact of heatwaves, demographics, and environment on hospitalization rates in paris, covid-19 outbreak and integration of social media in public health crisis communication: a case study of ummc, kuala lumpur, recent trends in hospital market concentration and profitability: the case of new jersey, clinical practice review on post-traumatic growth among healthcare professionals post covid-19 and the facilitation of health outcomes for the patient and client population group, a third pillar of patient safety: exploring the critical role of administration and clerical staff, clinical practice review on population health management and promoting positive health outcomes, monitoring temperature variability inside a healthcare facility during an extreme heat event using low-cost sensors, exploring environmental design attributes impacting staff perceptions of safety in a complex hospital system: implications for healthcare design, personal safety among doctors working in psychiatric services, professionalism and patient-centred care—patients’ views and experience, aggregating patients for discharge readiness in the neonatal intensive care unit: impact on length of stay, organizational and market characteristics associated with nursing homes’ affiliation with a continuing care retirement community, web-based calculator using machine learning to predict intracranial hematoma in geriatric traumatic brain injury, impact of covid-19 on operation room utilization efficiency and cardiac surgery care pathway: single centre experience, federally qualified health centers, health center controlled network affiliation and performance, impact of acute-care pharmacy services on health system skilled nursing locations, patient decision aid for chemotherapy or exclusion in cisplatin-intolerant patients with locally-advanced cervical cancer (cecil): protocol for development, validation and clinical testing, development of the private hospitals in singapore from 1983 to 2022, physician-hospital integration and hospital efficiency investigation, does daughter deficit promote paternal substance use evidence from china, effective mental health interventions to reduce hospital readmission rates: a systematic review, use of a web portal by adult patients with pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus seen in a family medicine outpatient clinic, use of a web portal among adult clinic patients seen for type 2 diabetes mellitus, toward research-tested mobile health interventions to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular disease among persons with pre-diabetes, a review of dual health care system use by veterans with cardiometabolic disease, a review of cancer outcomes among persons dually enrolled in medicare and medicaid, the affordable care act and insurance coverage for persons with diabetes in the united states, journal highlight more, reviewers more.

Announcement more

Publishing Information

Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy is published by AME Publishing Company

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 4, Issue 9
• The role of hospital managers in quality and patient safety: a systematic review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Anam Parand 1 ,
• Sue Dopson 2 ,
• Anna Renz 1 ,
• Charles Vincent 3
• 1 Department of Surgery & Cancer , Imperial College London , London , UK
• 2 Said Business School, University of Oxford , Oxford , UK
• 3 Department of Experimental Psychology , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Anam Parand; a.parand{at}imperial.ac.uk

Objectives To review the empirical literature to identify the activities, time spent and engagement of hospital managers in quality of care.

Design A systematic review of the literature.

Methods A search was carried out on the databases MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, EMBASE, HMIC. The search strategy covered three facets: management, quality of care and the hospital setting comprising medical subject headings and key terms. Reviewers screened 15 447 titles/abstracts and 423 full texts were checked against inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed on 19 included articles.

Results The majority of studies were set in the USA and investigated Board/senior level management. The most common research designs were interviews and surveys on the perceptions of managerial quality and safety practices. Managerial activities comprised strategy, culture and data-centred activities, such as driving improvement culture and promotion of quality, strategy/goal setting and providing feedback. Significant positive associations with quality included compensation attached to quality, using quality improvement measures and having a Board quality committee. However, there is an inconsistency and inadequate employment of these conditions and actions across the sample hospitals.

Conclusions There is some evidence that managers’ time spent and work can influence quality and safety clinical outcomes, processes and performance. However, there is a dearth of empirical studies, further weakened by a lack of objective outcome measures and little examination of actual actions undertaken. We present a model to summarise the conditions and activities that affect quality performance.

• HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
• Systematic literature review
• Patient Safety

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005055

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Strengths and limitations of this study

This is the first systematic review of the literature that has considered the evidence on Boards’ and managers’ time spent, engagement and work within the context of quality and safety. This review adds to the widely anecdotal and commentary pieces that speculate on what managers should be doing by presenting what they are actually doing.

The review reveals conditions and actions conducive to good quality management and offers a model to transparently present these to managers considering their own part in quality and safety.

The search for this review has screened a vast amount of the literature (over 15 000 articles) across a number of databases.

The small number of included studies and their varied study aims, design and population samples make generalisations difficult. With more literature on this topic, distinctions could be made between job positions.

The quality assessment scores are subjective and may not take into consideration factors beyond the quality assessment scale used.

Introduction

Managers in healthcare have a legal and moral obligation to ensure a high quality of patient care and to strive to improve care. These managers are in a prime position to mandate policy, systems, procedures and organisational climates. Accordingly, many have argued that it is evident that healthcare managers possess an important and obvious role in quality of care and patient safety and that it is one of the highest priorities of healthcare managers. 1–3 In line with this, there have been calls for Boards to take responsibility for quality and safety outcomes. 4 , 5 One article warned hospital leaders of the dangers of following in the path of bankers falling into recession, constrained by their lack of risk awareness and reluctance to take responsibility. 6 To add to the momentum are some high profile publicity of hospital management failures affecting quality and safety, eliciting strong instruction for managerial leadership for quality at the national level in some countries. 7 , 8

Beyond healthcare, there is clear evidence of managerial impact on workplace safety. 9–12 Within the literature on healthcare, there are non-empirical articles providing propositions and descriptions on managerial attitudes and efforts to improve safety and quality. This literature, made up of opinion articles, editorials and single participant experiences, present an array of insightful suggestions and recommendations for actions that hospital managers should take to improve the quality of patient care delivery in their organisation. 13–17 However, researchers have indicated that there is a limited evidence base on this topic. 18–21 Others highlight the literature focus on the difficulties of the managers’ role and the negative results of poor leadership on quality improvement (QI) rather than considering actions that managers presently undertake on quality and safety. 22 , 23 Consequently, little is known about what healthcare managers are doing in practice to ensure and improve quality of care and patient safety, how much time they spend on this, and what research-based guidance is available for managers in order for them to decide on appropriate areas to become involved. Due perhaps to the broad nature of the topic, scientific studies exploring these acts and their impact are likely to be a methodological challenge, although a systematic review of the evidence on this subject is notably absent. This present systematic literature review aims to identify empirical studies pertaining to the role of hospital managers in quality of care and patient safety. We define ‘role’ to comprise of managerial activities, time spent and active engagement in quality and safety and its improvement. While the primary research question is on the managers’ role, we take into consideration the contextual factors surrounding this role and its impact or importance as highlighted by the included studies. Our overarching question is “What is the role of hospital managers in quality and safety and its improvement?” The specific review research questions are as follows:

How much time is spent by hospital managers on quality and safety and its improvement?

What are the managerial activities that relate to quality and safety and its improvement?

How are managers engaged in quality and safety and its improvement?

What impact do managers have on quality and safety and its improvement?

How do contextual factors influence the managers’ role and impact on quality and safety and its improvement?

Concepts and definitions

Quality of care and patient safety were defined on the basis of widely accepted definitions from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Network (AHRQ PSN). IOM define quality in healthcare as possessing the following dimensions: safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable. 4 They define patient safety simply as “the prevention of harm to patients”, 24 and AHRQ define it as “freedom from accidental or preventable injuries produced by medical care.” 25 Literature was searched for all key terms associated with quality and patient safety to produce an all-encompassing approach. A manager was defined as an employee who has subordinates, oversees staff, is responsible for staff recruitment and training, and holds budgetary accountabilities. Therefore, all levels of managers including Boards of managers were included in this review with the exception of clinical frontline employees, e.g. doctors or nurses, who may have taken on further managerial responsibilities alongside their work but do not have a primary official role as a manager. Those who have specifically taken on a role for quality of care, e.g. the modern matron, were also excluded. Distinction between senior, middle and frontline management was as follows: senior management holds trust-wide responsibilities 26 ; middle managers are in the middle of the organisational hierarchy chart and have one or more managers reporting to them 27 ; frontline managers are defined as managers at the first level of the organisational hierarchy chart who have frontline employees reporting to them. Board managers include all members of the Board. Although there are overlaps between senior managers and Boards (e.g. chief executive officers (CEOs) may sit on hospital Boards), we aim to present senior and Board level managers separately due to the differences in their responsibilities and position. Only managers who would manage within or govern hospitals were included, with the exclusion of settings that solely served mental health or that comprised solely of non-acute care community services (in order to keep the sample more homogenous). The definition of ‘role’ focused on actual engagement, time spent and activities that do or did occur rather than those recommended that should or could occur.

Search strategy

Literature was reviewed between 1 January 1983 and 1 November 2010. Eligible articles were those that described or tested managerial roles pertaining to quality and safety in the hospital setting. Part of the search strategy was based on guidance by Tanon et al . 28 EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and PSYCHINFO databases were searched. The search strategy involved three facets (management, quality and hospital setting) and five steps. A facet (i.e. a conceptual grouping of related search terms) for role was not included in the search strategy, as it would have significantly reduced the sensitivity of the search.

Multiple iterations and combinations of all search terms were tested to achieve the best level of specificity and sensitivity. In addition to the key terms, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used, which were ‘exploded’ to include all MeSH subheadings. All databases required slightly different MeSH terms (named Emtree in EMBASE), therefore four variations of the search strategies were used (see online supplementary appendix 1 for the search strategies). Additional limits placed on the search strategy restricted study participants to human and the language to English. The search strategy identified 15 447 articles after duplicates had been removed.

Three reviewers (AP, AR and Dina Grishin) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the articles for studies that fit the inclusion criteria. One reviewer (AP) screened all 15 447 articles, while two additional reviewers screened 30% of the total sample retrieved from the search strategy: AR screened 20% and DG screened 10%. On testing inter-rater reliability, Cohen’s κ correlations showed low agreement between AR and AP (κ=0.157, p<0.01) and between DG and AP (κ=0.137, p<0.00). 29 However, there was a high percentage of agreement between raters (95% and 89%, respectively), which reveals a good inter-rater reliability. 30 , 31 Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The main inclusion criteria were that: the setting was hospitals; the population sample reported on was managers; the context was quality and safety; the aim was to identify the managerial activities/time/engagement in quality and safety. The full inclusion/exclusion criteria and screening tool can be accessed in the online supplementary appendices 2–3. Figure 1 presents the numbers of articles included and excluded at each stage of the review process.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Review stages based on PRISMA flow diagram. 33

Four hundred and twenty-three articles remained for full text screening. One reviewer (AP) screened all articles and a second reviewer (AR) reviewed 7% of these. A moderate agreement inter-rater reliability score was calculated (κ=0.615, p<0.001) with 73% agreement. The primary reoccurring difference in agreement was regarding whether the article pertained to quality of care, owing to the broad nature of the definition. Each article was discussed individually until a consensus was reached on whether to include or exclude. Hand searching and cross-referencing were carried out in case articles were missed by the search strategy or from restriction of databases. One additional article was identified from hand searching, 32 totalling 19 articles included in the systematic review ( figure 1 ).

Data extraction and methodological quality

The characteristics and summary findings of the 19 included studies are presented in table 1 . This table is a simplified version of a standardised template that was used to ensure consistency in data extracted from each article. Each study was assessed using a quality appraisal tool developed by Kmet et al , 34 which comprised of two checklists (qualitative and quantitative). Random included articles (32%) were scored by Ana Wheelock for scoring consistency. All articles were scored on up to 24 questions with a score between 0 and 2; table 2 shows an example definition of what constitutes ‘Yes’ (2), ‘Partial’ (1) and ‘No’ (0) rating criteria. The total percentage scores for each study are presented in table 1 . All studies were included regardless of their quality scores. Some cumulative evidence bias may results from two larger data sets split into more than one study each. 35–38 Through a narrative synthesis, we aimed to maintain the original meanings, interpretations and raw data offered by the articles. 39

• View inline

Table of characteristics and summary findings of included studies

Example of rating criteria from Kmet's quality assessment tool 34

This section provides an overview description of the reviewed studies and their key findings. The findings are considered under four main headings: managerial time spent on quality and safety; managerial quality and safety activities; managerial impact on quality and safety; and contextual factors related to managers’ quality and safety role. The section ends with a proposed model to summarise the review findings.

Description of the studies

From the 19 included studies, the majority were carried out and set in the USA (14 studies) and investigated senior management and/or Boards (13 studies). Of these, 3 focused on senior managers alone (e.g. chief nursing officers), 9 concentrated on Board managers and 1 included a mixture of managerial levels. Only 3 investigated middle managers and 3 examined frontline staff (e.g. clinical directorate managers and unit nurse managers). The settings of the study were mostly trust or hospital-wide; a few articles were set in specific settings or contexts: elderly care, 40 evidence-based medicine, 41 staff productivity, 42 clinical risk management 43 and hospital-acquired infection prevention. 44 Two studies involved specific interventions, 45 , 46 and 7 studies concentrated specifically on QI rather than quality and safety oversight or routine. 35 , 40 , 45–49 There were a mixture of 6 qualitative designs (interviews or focus groups); 8 quantitative survey designs and 5 mix-methods designs. All but one study employed a cross-sectional design. 46 The primary outcome measure used in most studies was perceptions of managerial quality and safety practices. All reported participant perceptions and a majority presented self-reports, i.e. either a mixture of self-reports and peer reports, or self-reports alone. 41 , 43 , 45 , 46 Several studies asked participants about their own and/or other managers’ involvement with regard to their specific QI intervention or quality/safety issue. 40 , 41 , 44–47 With some variations, the most common research design was to interview or survey senior manager/Board members (particularly Board chairs, presidents and CEOs) perceptions on the Board/senior managers’ functions, practices, priorities, agenda, time spent, engagement, challenges/issues, drivers and literacy (e.g. familiarity of key reports) on quality and safety. 35–38 , 48–51 Five of these studies included objective process/outcome measures, such as adjusted mortality rates. 35 , 37 , 38 , 49 , 50 No other studies included clinical outcome measures.

The quality assessment scores ranged between 50% and 100%; one study scored (what we consider to be) very low (i.e. <55%), eight studies scored highly (i.e. >75%), two other articles scored highly on one out of two of their studies (quantitative/qualitative) and the remaining eight scored a moderate rating in-between. Almost half of the articles did not adequately describe their qualitative studies. Specifically, 8 failed to fully describe their qualitative data collection methods, often not mentioning a standardised topic guide, what questions were asked of participants, or no mention of consent and confidentiality assurances. In 7 studies there was no or vague qualitative data analysis description, including omitting the type of qualitative analysis used. Six of the studies showed no or poor use of verification procedures to establish credibility and 9 reported no or poor reflexivity. Positively, all study designs were evident, the context of studies were clear and the authors showed a connection to a wider body of knowledge.

Similarly to the qualitative studies, 7 quantitative studies did not fully describe, justify or use appropriate analysis methods. However, compared with the qualitative studies, the quantitative studies suffered more from sampling issues. Three studies had particularly small samples (e.g. n=35) and one had an especially low response rate of 15%. Participant characteristics were insufficiently described in 5 studies; in one case the authors did not state the number of hospitals included in data analysis. Several studies had obtained ordinal data but only presented percentages, and only one study reported to appropriately controlled for confounding variables. Across all articles, all but 3 studies reported clear objectives and asserted conclusions clearly supported by the data.

Managerial time spent on quality and safety

The studies on Board level managers highlight an inadequate prioritisation of quality and patient safety on the Board agenda and subsequent time spent at Board meetings. Not all hospitals consistently have quality on their Board agenda, e.g. CEOs and chairpersons across 30 organisations reported that approximately a third of all Board meetings had quality on their agenda, 35 and necessary quality items were not consistently and sometimes never addressed. 36 In all studies examining time spent on quality and safety by the Board, less than half of the total time was spent on quality and safety, 32 , 37 , 38 , 48–51 with a majority of Boards spending 25% or less on quality. 32 , 38 , 45 , 49–51 Findings imply that this may be too low to have a positive influence on quality and safety, as higher quality performance was demonstrated by Boards that spent above 20%/25% on quality. 49 , 50 Board members recognised that the usual time spent is insufficient. 48 However, few reported financial goals as more important than quality and safety goals, 32 and health system Boards only spent slightly more time on financial issues than quality. 51 Frontline managers also placed less importance and time on QI, 42 identified as the least discussed topic by clinical managers. 52

Managerial quality and safety activities

A broad range of quality-related activities were identified to be undertaken by managers. These are presented by the following three groupings: strategy-centred; data-centred and culture-centred.

Strategy-centred

Board priority setting and planning strategies aligned with quality and safety goals were identified as Board managerial actions carried out in several studies. High percentages (over 80% in two studies) of Boards had formally established strategic goals for quality with specific targets and aimed to create a quality plan integral to their broader strategic agenda. 32 , 37 Contrary findings however suggest that the Board rarely set the agenda for the discussion on quality, 37 did not provide the ideas for their strategies 32 and were largely uninvolved in strategic planning for QI. 48 In the latter case, the non-clinical Board managers felt that they held ‘passive’ roles in quality decisions. This is important considering evidence that connects the activity of setting the hospital quality agenda with better performance in process of care and mortality. 38 Additionally, Boards that established goals in four areas of quality and publicly disseminated strategic goals and reported quality information were linked to high hospital performance. 35 , 38 , 50

Culture-centred

Activities aimed at enhancing patient safety/QI culture emerged from several studies across organisational tiers. 44 , 47 , 48 , 53 Board and senior management's activities included encouraging an organisational culture of QI on norms regarding interdepartmental/multidisciplinary collaboration and advocating QI efforts to clinicians and fellow senior managers, providing powerful messages of safety commitment and influencing the organisation's patient safety mission. 47 , 53 Managers at differing levels focused on cultivating a culture of clinical excellence and articulating the organisational culture to staff. 44 Factors to motivate/engage middle and senior management in QI included senior management commitment, provision of resources and managerial role accountability. 40 , 46 Findings revealed connections between senior management and Board priorities and values with hospital performance and on middle management quality-related activities. Ensuring capacity for high-quality standards also appears within the remit of management, as physician credentialing was identified as a Board managers’ responsibility in more than one study. 38 , 48 From this review it is unclear to what degree Board involvement in the credentialing process has a significant impact on quality. 38 , 41

Data-centred

Information on quality and safety is continually supplied to the Board. 51 At all levels of management, activities around quality and safety data or information were recognised in 6 studies. 35 , 38 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 53 Activities included collecting and collating information, 43 reviewing quality information, 35 , 38 , 53 using measures such as incident reports and infection rates to forge changes, 53 using patient satisfaction surveys, 35 taking corrective action based on adverse incidents or trends emphasised at Board meetings 38 and providing feedback. 43 , 47 The studies do not specify the changes made based on the data-related activities by senior managers; one study identified that frontline managers predominantly used data from an incident reporting tool to change policy/practice and training/education and communication between care providers. 45 However, overseeing data generally was found to be beneficial, as hospitals that carried out performance monitoring activities had significantly higher scores in process of care and lower mortality rates than hospitals that did not. 38

Managerial impact on quality and safety outcomes

We have considered the associations found between specific managerial involvement and its affect on quality and safety. Here, we summarise the impact and importance of their general role. Of the articles that looked at either outcomes of management involvement in quality or at its perceived importance, 6 articles suggested that their role was beneficial to quality and safety performance. 32 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 49 , 53 Senior management support and engagement was identified as one of the primary factors associated with good hospital-wide quality outcomes and QI programme success. 35 , 38 , 40 , 49 Conversely, 6 articles suggest that managers’ involvement (from the Board, middle and frontline) has little, no or a negative influence on quality and safety. 35 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 49 Practices that showed no significant association with quality measures included Board's participation in physician credentialing. 35 , 38 Another noted that if other champion leaders are present, management leadership was not deemed necessary. 44 Two articles identified a negative or inhibitory effect on evidence-based practices and staff productivity from frontline and middle managers. 41 , 42

Contextual factors related to managers’ quality and safety role

Most of the articles focused on issues that influenced the managers’ role or their impact, as opposed to discussing the role of the managers. These provide an insight in to the types of conditions in which a manager can best undertake their role to affect quality and safety. Unfortunately it appears that many of these conditions are not in place.

Two studies found that a Board quality committee is a positive variable in quality performance, but that fewer than 60% had them. 38 , 50 Similarly, compensation and performance evaluation linked to executive quality performance was identified in 4 articles 35 , 37 , 38 , 49 and associated with better quality performance indicators, 38 , 49 but quality measures were insufficiently included in CEOs’ performance evaluation. 35 , 37 The use of the right measures to drive QI was raised in relation to Board managerial engagement in quality 35 and to impact on patient care improvement, 51 yet almost half of this sample did not formally adopt system-wide measures and standards for quality. To aid them in these tasks, evidence indicates the common use of QI measure tools, such as a dashboard or scorecard, 37 , 49 , 50 with promising associations between dashboard use and quality outcomes. 38 , 50

Other factors linked to quality outcomes include management–staff relationship/high interactions between the Board and medical staff when setting quality strategy, 49 and managerial expertise. Although a connection between knowledge and quality outcomes was not found, 38 high performing hospitals have shown higher self-perceived ability to influence care, expertise at the Board and participation in training programmes that have a quality component. 50 Disappointingly, there is a low level of CEO knowledge on quality and safety reports, 35 possibly little Boardroom awareness on salient nursing quality issues, 36 and little practice identified to improve quality literacy for the Board. 32 , 37 There is however promise for new managers through relevant training at induction and by recruitment of those with relevant expertise. 32

The quality management IPO model

The input process output (IPO) model is a conceptual framework that helps to structure the review findings in a useful way (see figure 2) . 54 , 55 This literature may be conceptualised by considering what factors contribute (input) to managerial activities (process) that impact on quality and safety (output). The three factors are inter-related and interchangeable, presented by the cyclical interconnecting diagram. This diagram enables a clearer mental picture of what a manager should consider for their role in quality and safety. Specifically, the input factors suggest certain organisational factors that should be put in place alongside individual factors to prepare for such a role (e.g. standardised quality measures, motivation, education and expertise, and a good relationship with clinicians). The processes present the strategy, culture and data-centred areas where managers (according to the literature) are and/or should be involved (e.g. driving improvement culture, goal setting and providing feedback on corrective actions for adverse events). The outputs identify managerial influences that are positive, negative or have little or no established association with quality performance (e.g. positive outcomes of care, achieving objectives and engaging others in quality of care). This helps to identify areas where it is possible to make an impact through the processes mentioned. With further empirical studies on this topic, this model could be strengthened to become a more robust set of evidence-based criteria and outcomes.

The quality management IPO model (IPO, input process output; QI, quality improvement).

Our review examined the role of managers in maintaining and promoting safe, quality care. The existing studies detail the time spent, activities and engagement of hospital managers and Boards, and suggest that these can positively influence quality and safety performance. They further reveal that such involvement is often absent, as are certain conditions that may help them in their work.

Evidence from the review promotes hospitals to have a Board quality committee, with a specific item on quality at the Board meeting, a quality performance measurement report and a dashboard with national quality and safety benchmarks along with standardised quality and safety measures. Outside of the Boardroom, the implications are for senior managers to build a good infrastructure for staff–manager interactions on quality strategies and attach compensation and performance evaluation to quality and safety achievements. For QI programmes, managers should keep in mind its consistency with the hospital’s mission and provide commitment, resources, education and role accountability. Literature elsewhere supports much of these findings, such as the use of quality measurement tools 21 , 56 better quality-associated compensation, a separate quality committee, 16 , 57 and has also emphasised poor manager–clinician relationships as damaging to patients and QI. 58 , 59

Some of the variables that were shown to be associated with good quality performance, such as having a Board committee, compensation/performance and adoption of system-wide measures, were lacking within the study hospitals. There are also indications of the need to develop Board and senior managerial knowledge and training on quality and safety. Furthermore, this review indicates that many managers do not spend sufficient time on quality and safety. The included studies suggest time spent by the Board should exceed 20–25%, yet the findings expose that certain Boards devote less time than this. Inadequacies of time allocated to quality at the Board meeting hold concerning implications for quality. If little time is taken to consider quality of care matters at the highest level, an inference is that less attention will be paid to prevention and improvement of quality within the hospital. While the position that the item appears on the agenda is deemed of high importance, it is unimportant if the duration on this item is overly brief. In this vein, the inadequate time on quality spent by some may reflect their prioritisation on quality in relation to other matters discussed at the meetings or the value perceived to be gained from discussing it further. It might instead however be indicative of the difficulties in measuring time spent on quality by management. Some of these studies provide us not necessarily with Board managers’ time on quality and safety but their time spent on this at Board meetings. The two may not equate and time spent on quality may not necessarily be well spent. 36 The emerging inference that managers greatly prioritise other work over quality and safety is not explicit, with further research required to identify what time is actually devoted and required from managers inside and outside of the Boardroom. Perhaps encouragingly, the more recent studies present more time spent on quality and safety than the earlier studies. Yet even the most recent empirical studies not included in our review conclude that much improvement is required. 60

This review presents a wide range of managerial activities, such as public reporting of quality strategies and driving an improvement culture. It further highlights the activities that appear to affect quality performance. Priorities for Boards/managers are to engage in quality, establish goals and strategy to improve care, and get involved in setting the quality agenda, support and promote a safety and QI culture, cultivate leaders, manage resisters, plan ahead and procure organisational resources for quality. Again, much of the findings support the assertions made in the non-empirical literature. Above all, involvement through action, engagement and commitment has been suggested to positively affect quality and safety. 61 While researchers have stressed the limited empirical evidence showing conclusive connection between management commitment and quality, 21 some supporting evidence however can be unearthed in research that concentrates on organisational factors related to changes made to improve quality and safety in healthcare. 62–64 In addition to this evidence, a few studies have specifically investigated the impact that hospital managers have on quality and safety (rather than examination of their role). These studies have shown senior managerial leadership to be associated with a higher degree of QI implementation, 65 promotion of clinical involvement, 66 , 67 safety climate attitudes 68 and increased Board leadership for quality. 57 A clear case for the positive influence of management involvement with quality is emerging both from the findings of our review and related literature.

Key messages from the systematic literature review

There is a dearth of empirical evidence on hospital managerial work and its influence on quality of care.

There is some evidence that Boards’/managers’ time spent, engagement and work can influence quality and safety clinical outcomes, processes and performance.

Some variables associated with good quality performance were lacking in study hospitals.

Many Board managers do not spend sufficient time on quality and safety.

There is a greater focus on the contextual issues surrounding managers’ roles than on examining managerial activities.

Research is required to examine middle and frontline managers, to take into consideration non-managers’ perceptions, and to assess senior managers’ time and tasks outside of the Boardroom. More robust methodologies with objective outcome measures would strengthen the evidence.

We present a model to summarise the evidence-based promotion of conditions and activities for managers to best affect quality performance.

Review limitations

There are several limitations of the present review pertaining to the search strategy and review process, the limited sample of studies, publication bias, and limitations of the studies themselves. Specifically, the small number of included studies and their varied study aims, design and population samples make generalisations difficult. Grouped demographics, such as middle management, are justified by the overlap between positions. With more literature on this topic, distinctions could be made between job positions. Furthermore, more research on lower levels of management would have provided a better balanced review of hospital managers’ work and contributions to quality. Restricting the language of studies to English in the search strategy is likely to have biased the findings and misrepresent which countries conduct studies on this topic. There is an over-reliance on perceptions across the studies, which ultimately reduces the validity of the conclusions drawn from their findings. As most of the study findings relied on self-reports, social desirability may have resulted in exaggerated processes and inflated outputs. Although, encouragingly, one of the included studies found that managers who perceived their Boards to be effective in quality oversight were from hospitals that had higher processes-of-care scores and lower risk adjusted mortality. The quality assessment scores should be viewed with caution; such scores are subjective and may not take into consideration factors beyond the quality assessment scale used. Owing to the enormity of this review, the publication of this article is some time after the search run date. As there is little evidence published on this topic, we consider this not to greatly impact on the current relevance of the review, particularly as the literature reviewed spans almost three decades. However, we acknowledge the need for an update of the data as a limitation of this review.

The modest literature that exists suggests that managers’ time spent, engagement and work can influence quality and safety clinical outcomes, processes and performance. Managerial activities that affect quality performance are especially highlighted by this review, such as establishing goals and strategy to improve care, setting the quality agenda, engaging in quality, promoting a QI culture, managing resisters and procurement of organisational resources for quality. Positive actions to consider include the establishment of a Board quality committee, with a specific item on quality at the Board meeting, a quality performance measurement report and a dashboard with national quality and safety benchmarks, performance evaluation attached to quality and safety, and an infrastructure for staff–manager interactions on quality strategies. However, many of these arrangements were not in place within the study samples. There are also indications of a need for managers to devote more time to quality and safety. More than one study suggest time spent by the Board should exceed 20–25%, yet the findings expose that certain Boards devote less time than this. Much of the content of the articles focused on such contextual factors rather than on the managerial role itself; more empirical research is required to elucidate managers’ actual activities. Research is additionally required to examine middle and frontline managers, non-manager perceptions, and to assess senior managers’ time and tasks outside of the Boardroom. We present the quality management IPO model to summarise the evidence-based promotion of conditions and activities in order to guide managers on the approaches taken to influence quality performance. More robust empirical research with objective outcome measures could strengthen this guidance.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Miss Dina Grishin for helping to review the abstracts and Miss Ana Wheelock for helping to assess the quality of the articles.

• ↵ Institute of Medicine . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century . Washington : National Academy Press , 2001 .
• Gosfield AG ,
• Reinertsen JL
• ↵ National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England . A promise to learn—a commitment to act: improving the safety of patients in England 2013 . https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226703/Berwick_Report.pdf (accessed 15 Aug 2013)
• Guidotti TL
• Caldwell C ,
• Goeschel CA ,
• Wachter RM ,
• Pronovost PJ
• Øvretveit J
• Glickman SW ,
• Baggett KA ,
• Krubert CG ,
• Gaucher E ,
• Kratochwill EW
• Thorman KE ,
• Capitulo KL ,
• Corrigan JM ,
• Wolcott J ,
• ↵ AHRQ . AHRQ Patient Safety Network Glossary . 2011 . http://www.psnet.ahrq.gov/glossary.aspx?indexLetter=P (accessed 19 May 2012)
• Mintzberg H
• Champagne F ,
• Contandriopoulos AP ,
• Cicchetti DV ,
• Feinstein AR
• Liberati A ,
• Tetzlaff J ,
• Mastal MF ,
• Bradley EH ,
• Webster TR ,
• Schlesinger M ,
• Kowalski CP ,
• Banaszak-Holl J ,
• Poniatowski L ,
• Stanley S ,
• Youngberg B
• Holmboe ES ,
• Mattera JA ,
• Prybil LD ,
• Peterson R ,
• Brezinski P ,
• Braithwaite J ,
• Finnegan TP ,
• Graham EM ,
• Weingart SN ,
• Naranjo-Gil D
• Weiner BJ ,
• Alexander JA ,
• Shortell SM
• Edwards N ,
• Marshall M ,
• McLellan A ,
• Wilkinson JE ,
• Holmes SK ,
• Shortell SM ,
• Bennett CL ,
• Keroack MA ,
• Youngberg BJ ,
• Cerese JL ,
• Parker VA ,
• Wubbenhorst WH ,
• Shortell S ,
• Alexander J
• Duckers MLA ,
• Stegeman I ,
• Spreeuwenberg P ,
• Sutcliffe KM

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Files in this Data Supplement:

• Data supplement 1 - Online appendices

Contributors All coauthors contributed to the study design and reviewed drafts of the article. The first author screened all the articles for inclusion in this review and appraised the study quality. AR and Dina Grishin screened a sample of these at title/abstract and full text, and Ana Wheelock scored the quality of a sample of the included articles.

Funding This work was supported by funding from the Health Foundation and the National Institute for Health Research (grant number: P04636).

Competing interests None.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement The extraction table of the included studies and individual study quality scores can be made available on request to the corresponding author at [email protected].

Read the full text or download the PDF:

hospital management Recently Published Documents

Total documents.

• Latest Documents
• Most Cited Documents
• Contributed Authors
• Related Sources
• Related Keywords

An Enhanced Entity Model for Converting Relational to Non-Relational Documents in Hospital Management System Based on Cloud Computing

Hospital management practices in county-level hospitals in rural china and international comparison.

Abstract Background Although management is important in healthcare, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have little experience measuring the competence of hospital management. While improving hospital management is the main focus of hospital reform in China, few studies have empirically documented the baseline situation to inform policy design. Methods We assessed the management practices of county-level hospitals in Guizhou in southwest China during 2015. We used the Development World Management Survey (D-WMS) instrument to interview 273 managers in 139 hospitals. We scored the management practices of the sampled hospitals, overall and in four dimensions (operations, monitoring, targets, personnel management) and three processes (implementation, usage, monitoring). We then converted the scores to the WMS scale and compared these with data from two other LMICs and seven high-income countries (HICs). Results On a scale of 1 (‘worst practice’) to 5 (‘best practice’), the mean (SD) hospital D-WMS scores were 2.57 (0.46) overall; 2.71 (0.48), 2.64 (0.58), 2.40 (0.64), and 2.56 (0.40) for operation, monitoring, target, and personnel, respectively; and 2.43 (0.48), 2.62 (0.48), and 2.66 (0.47) for implementation, usage, and monitoring, respectively. After conversion to WMS scores, China ranked seventh of 10 countries, after six HICs and higher than one HIC and two other LMICs (Brazil and India). China ranked higher than the two LMICs in each of the four dimensional scores. Conclusions Chinese county-level hospitals should improve their low quality of management by prioritizing target-setting and process implementation, particularly in personnel management. Meanwhile, modern management training should be given to most clinical managers.

Kuala Lumpur train collision during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background Two city trains collided in an underground tunnel on 24 May 2021 at the height of COVID-19 pandemic near the Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, immediately after the evening rush hours. We aim to evaluate the management of this mass casualty incident highlighting the lessons learned to be used in preparedness for similar incidents that may occur in other major cities worldwide. Methods Information regarding incident site and hospital management response were analysed. Data on demography, triaging, injuries and hospital management of patients were collected according to a designed protocol. Challenges, difficulties and their solutions were reported. Results The train's emergency response team (ERT) has shut down train movements towards the incident site. Red zone (in the tunnel), yellow zone (the station platform) and green zone (outside the station entrance) were established. The fire and rescue team arrived and assisted the ERT in the red zone. Incident command system was established at the site. Medical base station was established at the yellow zone. Two hundred and fourteen passengers were in the trains. Sixty-four of them were injured. They had a median (range) ISS of 2 (1–43), and all were sent to Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL). Six (9.4%) patients were clinically triaged as red (critical), 19 (29.7%) as yellow (semi-critical) and 39 (60.9%) as green (non-critical). HKL's disaster plan was activated. All patients underwent temperature and epidemiology link assessment. Seven (10.9%) patients were admitted to the hospital (3 to the ICU, 3 to the ward and 1 to a private hospital as requested by the patient), while the rest 56 (87.5%) were discharged home. Six (9.4%) needed surgery. The COVID-19 tests were conducted on seven patients (10.9%) and were negative. There were no deaths. Conclusions The mass casualty incident was handled properly because of a clear standard operating procedure, smooth coordination between multi-agencies and the hospitals, presence of a 'binary' system for 'COVID-risk' and 'non-COVID-risk' areas, and the modifications of the existing disaster plan. Preparedness for MCIs is essential during pandemics.

Standardization and strengthening the functionality of hospital management boards in central hospitals: Evidence of a developing economy

Zimbabwe’s public hospitals have been criticised for the declining standard of health service delivery for the past three decades with fingers pointed towards the hospital governance system. In response to the criticism, the government of Zimbabwe, through the Ministry of Health, has begun the process of making structural changes to the entire hospital governance system (Moyo, 2016; Sikipa, Osifo-Dawodu, Kokwaro, & Rice, 2019). The aim of the study is to examine the processes of appointing hospital management board (HMB) members in central hospitals of Zimbabwe. The study sought to explore the standardization, strengthening, and performance of HMBs in central hospitals of Zimbabwe with a focus on six central hospitals which include Harare, Chitungwiza, Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals, United Bulawayo Hospitals (UBH), Mpilo, and Ingutsheni. The study employed a mixed-method design using the questionnaire and interviews to collect data. The target population included 66 board members. The census approach was used meaning that all members of the population formed the sample size. The study revealed that 67% of hospitals had functional HMBs with a quorum despite lacking a clear policy to evaluate their performance. The gaps identified required policy review to strengthen the appointment and performance of HMBs

Analisis Tata Kelola Teknologi Informasi Untuk Mendefinisikan Arsitektur Informasi Dengan Framework COBIT 4.1 (Studi Kasus Instalasi Rawat Jalan RSUD Prov. NTB)

Treatment for outpatient installations (IRJA) NTB provincial hospitals have used hospital management information systems, but this is still not effective. The information system is not effective because registration centred in the main hall. The centralized registration caused the accumulation of patient queues that occurred in each IRJA polyclinic, and this was due to the absence of an integrated queue number between registrations carried out in the main hall and IRJA polyclinics. Therefore, the governance of information architecture processes needs to be applied to optimize information systems. We use COBIT 4.1 to conduct governance. The aim is to get existing and expected outpatients from Prov. NTB Hospital. So, it can help to manage information architecture to perform quality and competitive outpatient services. The results showed the IT processes selected in PO2 (Determine Information Architecture) and AI4 (Activate and Use). We reach the maturity level of all IT processes at level 3 (the specified process) for conditions as they are and 5 (optimized) for conditions that will occur. The level of maturity can help the NTB Provincial Hospital to improve its services.

The Influence of Organizational Climate and Public Service Motivation on the Performance of Nurses at the Haji Hospital in South Sulawesi Province

This research is a quantitative study using an observational study with a cross-sectional study design on the influence of organizational climate, Public Service Motivation and nurse performance from 182 samples of nurse respondents at Haji Hospital, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. The aim is to identify the current organizational climate of the Haji Hospital, increase awareness of the mission of the Haji Hospital and identify motivational factors. The results showed that the influence of organizational climate on nurse performance was (0.000). The results showed that there was an effect of Public Service Motivation on Nurse Performance of (0.000). The results showed that the organizational climate variable had the most influence on the performance of nurses at the Haji Hospital, South Sulawesi Province. It is recommended to the management of the Hajj Hospital to improve teamwork by immediately resolving conflicts such as achieving the goals set by the Hajj Hospital Management. Hajj Hospital management seems to have to include flexibility; for example, team convenience might come with more flexible policies such as conducting tutoring and training via online video. It is recommended that after watching the video, nurses then write solutions to resolve conflicts in the organizational climate. Their papers will be reviewed and given written instructions by the leadership to nurses. Following the group discussion and later each nurse presented their views. The Hajj Hospital management provides appropriate incentives and praise for the successful performance of nurses.

Pemodelan Ancaman Sistem Keamanan E-Health menggunakan Metode STRIDE dan DREAD

The Hospital Management Information System (SIMRS) functions as a medium for hospital information and hospital management. There are patient medical record data, which is the result of interactions between doctors and sufferer. Medical records are sensitive data so that the security of the hospital management information system needs to be improved to convince users or patients that the data stored on SIMRS is safe at attackers. There are several ways to improve system security, one of which is by threat modeling. Threat modeling aims to identify vulnerabilities and threats that exist in SIMRS. In this paper, threat modeling will use the STRIDE-model. The recognition with the STRIDE-model will then be analyzed and sorted according to the modeling with the STRIDE method. After the analysis is complete, it will be calculated and given a rating based on the DREAD method's assessment. The STRIDE method's results show that there are several threats identified, such as there is one threat on the user side, the webserver is five threats, and the database is three threats. The level of the threat varies from the lowest-level (LowL) to the highest-level (HiL). Based on the threat level, it can be a guide and sequence in improving and improving the security system at SIMRS, starting from the LowL to the HiL.

Pre-Hospital and In-Hospital Management of an Abdominal Impalement Injury Caused by a Tree Branch

Current status of out-of-hospital management of cancer patients and awareness of internet medical treatment: a questionnaire survey.

Objective: To explore the current situation of the out-of-hospital management of patients with cancer and evaluate the feasibility of Internet medical intervention outside the hospital in China.Methods: The questionnaire was designed based on the investigators' clinical experience, literature data, and the Anderson Symptom Scale, and adopted a cross sectional survey method.Results: Totally 1,171 qualified questionnaires were analyzed. The results showed that 92.7% of patients with cancer experienced varying degrees of out-of-hospital symptoms after treatment, and a third of them needed clinical intervention. Abnormal blood test results outside the hospital were basically consistent with the events that occurred during the hospitalization. One third of patients with cancer could not identify abnormal results. The primary approaches to solve these abnormalities were to seek guidance from the physician in charge or from nearby hospitals, but only 6.75% patients sought help online. More than half of the life or work of patients with cancer are still greatly affected under the current management model. 92% of respondents required medical help outside the hospital, and 65% ones were willing to pay for the out-of-hospital management.Conclusions: Out-of-hospital management model needs to be improved. Most users are willing to accept Internet cancer management with fees. The survey has a positive effect on guiding future Internet cancer management practices in China to a certain extent.

Medical disputes and patient satisfaction in China: How does hospital management matter?

Export citation format, share document.

Social determinants of the impact of hospital management boards on quality management: a study of 109 European hospitals using a parsonian approach

Affiliations.

• 1 Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Eupener Strasse 129, 50933, Cologne, Germany. [email protected].
• 2 Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Eupener Strasse 129, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
• 3 Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 4 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 5 Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain.
• PMID: 33468129
• PMCID: PMC7814745
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-06053-0

Background: The consolidated framework for implementation research states that personal leadership matters in quality management implementation. However, it remains to be answered which characteristics of plural leadership in hospital management boards make them impactful. The present study focuses on social determinants of implementation power of hospital boards using Talcott Parsons' sociological concept of adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency (AGIL), focusing on the G (goal attainment) and I (integration) factors of this concept. The study aims to test the hypothesis that hospitals with management boards that are oriented toward the quality goal (G) and socially integrated (I) (GI boards) are better at implementing quality management than hospitals with boards lacking these characteristics (non-GI boards).

Methods: A cross-sectional mixed-method design was used for data collection in 109 randomly selected hospitals in seven European countries. Data is based on the study "Deepening our understanding of quality improvement in Europe" (DUQUE). We used responses from (a) hospitals' chief executive officers to measure the variable social integration and the variable quality orientation of the board and (b) responses from quality managers to measure the degree of implementation of the quality management system. We developed the GI index measuring the combination of goal-orientation and integration. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed.

Results: Hospitals with management boards that are quality oriented and socially integrated (GI boards) had significantly higher scores on the quality management system index than hospitals with boards scoring low on these features, when controlled for several context factors.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the implementation power of hospital management boards is higher if there is a sense of unity and purpose within the boards. Thus, to improve quality management, it could be worthwhile to increase boards' social capital and to increase time designated for quality management in board meetings.

Keywords: Consolidated framework for implementation research; Hospital management board; Implementation power; Leadership; Quality management; Social capital; Top management team.

• Cross-Sectional Studies
• Governing Board
• Hospital Administration*
• Social Determinants of Health*

Grants and funding

• 241822/FP7 Health

Research on Health Services Management: The Search for Structure

Cite this chapter.

• Thomas T. H. Wan Ph.D. 2  

194 Accesses

Health services management research (HSMR) has been described as an iterative process, which compiles data, generates pertinent managerial information, and influences the delivery of health care services. This field of inquiry examines the effects of organization, financing, management, and market forces on the performance of health care organizations in the delivery, quality and cost of, access to, and outcomes of health services. The inquiry encompasses a variety of disciplines: social and behavioral sciences, statistics, economics, sociology, political science, anthropology, psychology, operations research, epidemiology, and biostatistics, as well as medicine and nursing. Responsibilities of HSMR include:

Collection and diffusion of health care information and statistics.

Design, development, and evaluation of new health services systems and processes.

Improvement of health services through quality assessment, improvement and management.

Research and theory building in management.

Policy impact analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Aday, L., Begley, C.E., Lairson, D.R., Slater, C.H. (1993). Evaluating the Medical Care System: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity . Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press.

Google Scholar  

Andersen, R.M. (1995). Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter?. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36(March): 1–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bice, T.W. (1980). Social health services research: Contributions to public policy. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 58(2): 173–200.

Ginzberg, E. (1991). Health Services Research: Key to Health Policy . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ginzberg, P. (1997). A perspective on health system change in 1997. Charting Change: A Longitudinal Look at the American Health System, 1997 Annual Report . Washington, D.C.: Center for Studying Health System Change.

Gray, J.A.M. (1997). Evidence-Based Health Care: How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions . N.Y.: Churchill Livingstone.

Greenlick, M.R., Freeborn, D.K., Pope, C.R. (1988). Health Care Research in HMO: Two Decades of Discovery . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hech, T., Thomas, S.L. (2000). An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Jöreskog, K.G. Sörbom, D. LISREL: Unpublished Lecture Notes, 1981.

Kendall, D.B., Levine, S.R. (1998). Pursuing the promise of an information-age health care system. Health Affairs 17(6): 41–43.

Kerkri, E.M., Quantin, C., Allaert, E.A., Cottin, Y., Charve, Ph., Jouanot, F., Yétongnon, K. (2001). An approach for integrating heterogeneous information sources in a medical data warehouse. Journal of Medical Systems 25(3): 167–176.

Kersnik, J. (2001). Determinants of customer satisfaction with the health care system. Health Policy 57(2): 155–164.

Klarman, H.T. (1980). Observations on health services research and health policy analysis. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 2(2): 201–216.

Mechanic, D. (1978). Prospects and problems in health services research. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 56(2): 127–139.

Oleske, D. M. (ed.) (2001). Epidemiology and the Delivery of Health Care Services: Methods and Applications. 2nd edition . New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Ozean, Y. (1995). Efficiency of hospital service production in local markets: The balance sheet of U.S. medical armament. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences , 29 (2), 139–150.

Pa, C.W., Wan, T.T.H. (1997). Confirmatory analysis of health outcome indicators: the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement 1(2): 48–59.

Porter, S.J. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of the distinction between for-profit and non-for-profit hospitals in America. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 42:17–44.

Reed, P.L. (1998). Medical outcomes study short form 36: Testing and cross-validating a second-order factorial structure for health system employees. Health Services Research 33(5): 1361–1380.

Roberts, C.A., Burke, S.O. (1989). Nursing Research: A Quantitative and Qualitative Approach. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Shortell, S.M., Kaluzny, A.D. (2000). Health Care Management: Organization, Design, and Behavior . 4th edition. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.

Stryer, D., Tunis, S., Hubbard, H., Clancy, C. (2000). The Outcomes of Outcomes and Effectiveness Research: Impacts and Lessons from the first decade. Health Services Research 35(5): 977–993.

Wan, T.T.H. (1995). Analysis and Evaluation of Health Care Systems: An Integrated Managerial Decision-Making Approach . Baltimore: Health Professions Press.

Ware, J. (1986). The assessment of health status. In L. Aiken and D. Mechanic (eds.) Applications of Social Science to Clinical Medicine and Health Policy . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Wennberg, J. (1984). Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Affairs 3: 6–32.

White, K.L. (1992). Health Services Research: An Anthology . Washington, D.C.: Pan American Health Organization.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

Thomas T. H. Wan Ph.D.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Wan, T.T.H. (2002). Research on Health Services Management: The Search for Structure. In: Evidence-Based Health Care Management. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0795-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0795-6_3

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4613-5243-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-4615-0795-6

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Hospital Management System

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.