{"title":"Examining the role of single versus dual decision-making approach for patient care: Evidence from cardiology patients","authors":"Deepa Goradia, Aravind Chandrasekaran","doi":"10.1002/joom.1340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research in healthcare suggests that repeated interaction between a provider and a patient can support better decision-making, resulting in improved efficiencies. To date, these repeated interactions enabling continuity of care have not been studied in hospital inpatient settings. During a hospital stay, decisions related to patient treatment are usually made by two key decision-makers: the attending physician (AP) and the operating physician (OP). Under the single decision-making approach (S-DMA), the AP and OP are the same; in contrast, under the dual decision-making approach (D-DMA), the AP and OP are different. In recent years, there has been an increasing trend toward the use of D-DMA over S-DMA across U.S. hospitals owing to scheduling conflicts. Although research outside healthcare operations management has argued for benefits from both approaches, their impacts on a patient's hospital stay are unclear. In this study, we address this gap by investigating the effects of S-DMA and D-DMA on patient care outcomes in terms of patient length of stay (LOS), treatment cost, and mortality. Data for our study come from the state of Florida and involve 520,554 cardiology patients treated by 9483 APs and 18,398 OPs at 241 hospitals between 2014 and 2016. We account for both patient and physician selection issues when choosing a particular decision-making strategy. Our results suggest that, on average, using S-DMA is associated with reduced patient LOS and treatment cost but has no effect on mortality. We also find that S-DMA is more beneficial for patients with low comorbidity and low process uncertainty, whereas D-DMA is more beneficial for patients with high comorbidity and high process uncertainty. Our results are robust to alternative explanations. We demonstrate that a single decision-maker offers benefits in the context of healthcare delivery, but dual decision-makers may yield benefits when caring for patients with high comorbidity and high process complexity. We discuss the implications of these findings for appropriately deploying S-DMA and D-DMA in inpatient services.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 1","pages":"11-39"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.1340","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Research in healthcare suggests that repeated interaction between a provider and a patient can support better decision-making, resulting in improved efficiencies. To date, these repeated interactions enabling continuity of care have not been studied in hospital inpatient settings. During a hospital stay, decisions related to patient treatment are usually made by two key decision-makers: the attending physician (AP) and the operating physician (OP). Under the single decision-making approach (S-DMA), the AP and OP are the same; in contrast, under the dual decision-making approach (D-DMA), the AP and OP are different. In recent years, there has been an increasing trend toward the use of D-DMA over S-DMA across U.S. hospitals owing to scheduling conflicts. Although research outside healthcare operations management has argued for benefits from both approaches, their impacts on a patient's hospital stay are unclear. In this study, we address this gap by investigating the effects of S-DMA and D-DMA on patient care outcomes in terms of patient length of stay (LOS), treatment cost, and mortality. Data for our study come from the state of Florida and involve 520,554 cardiology patients treated by 9483 APs and 18,398 OPs at 241 hospitals between 2014 and 2016. We account for both patient and physician selection issues when choosing a particular decision-making strategy. Our results suggest that, on average, using S-DMA is associated with reduced patient LOS and treatment cost but has no effect on mortality. We also find that S-DMA is more beneficial for patients with low comorbidity and low process uncertainty, whereas D-DMA is more beneficial for patients with high comorbidity and high process uncertainty. Our results are robust to alternative explanations. We demonstrate that a single decision-maker offers benefits in the context of healthcare delivery, but dual decision-makers may yield benefits when caring for patients with high comorbidity and high process complexity. We discuss the implications of these findings for appropriately deploying S-DMA and D-DMA in inpatient services.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading academic publication dedicated to advancing the field of operations management (OM) through rigorous and original research. The journal's primary audience is the academic community, although it also values contributions that attract the interest of practitioners. However, it does not publish articles that are primarily aimed at practitioners, as academic relevance is a fundamental requirement.
JOM focuses on the management aspects of various types of operations, including manufacturing, service, and supply chain operations. The journal's scope is broad, covering both profit-oriented and non-profit organizations. The core criterion for publication is that the research question must be centered around operations management, rather than merely using operations as a context. For instance, a study on charismatic leadership in a manufacturing setting would only be within JOM's scope if it directly relates to the management of operations; the mere setting of the study is not enough.
Published papers in JOM are expected to address real-world operational questions and challenges. While not all research must be driven by practical concerns, there must be a credible link to practice that is considered from the outset of the research, not as an afterthought. Authors are cautioned against assuming that academic knowledge can be easily translated into practical applications without proper justification.
JOM's articles are abstracted and indexed by several prestigious databases and services, including Engineering Information, Inc.; Executive Sciences Institute; INSPEC; International Abstracts in Operations Research; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; SciSearch/Science Citation Index; CompuMath Citation Index; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Information Access Company; and Social Sciences Citation Index. This ensures that the journal's research is widely accessible and recognized within the academic and professional communities.