首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Healthcare Management最新文献

英文 中文
Improving Operations, From Preop to Postop. 改进操作,从术前到术后。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00238
Matt J Mazurek
{"title":"Improving Operations, From Preop to Postop.","authors":"Matt J Mazurek","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00238","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00238","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"8-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Sun Tzu and the Art of Healthcare Management. 孙子与医疗管理艺术》。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00239
{"title":"Sun Tzu and the Art of Healthcare Management.","authors":"","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00239","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00239","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Christopher J. King, PhD, FACHE, Dean of the School of Health, Georgetown University. 乔治敦大学卫生学院院长 Christopher J. King 博士。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00237
{"title":"Christopher J. King, PhD, FACHE, Dean of the School of Health, Georgetown University.","authors":"","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00237","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00237","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"4-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Playing by the Rules? Tracking U.S. Hospitals' Responses to Federal Price Transparency Regulation. 循规蹈矩?追踪美国医院对联邦价格透明法规的反应。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00014
Sayeh Nikpay, Caitlin Carroll, Ezra Golberstein, Jean Marie Abraham
<p><strong>Goal: </strong>As of January 1, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires most U.S. hospitals to publish pricing information on their website to help consumers make decisions regarding services and to transform negotiations with health insurers. For this study, we evaluated changes in hospitals' compliance with the federal price transparency rule after the first year of enactment, during which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services increased the penalty for noncompliance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a nationally representative random sample of 470 hospitals, we assessed compliance with both parts of the hospital transparency rule (publishing a machine-readable price database and a consumer shopping tool) in the first quarter of 2022 and compared its baseline level in the first quarter of 2021. Using data from the American Hospital Association and Clarivate, we next assessed how compliance varied by hospital factors (ownership, number of beds, system membership, teaching status, type of electronic health record system), market factors (hospital and insurer market concentration), and the estimated change in penalty for noncompliance.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>By early 2022, 46% of hospitals had posted both machine-readable and consumer-shoppable data, an increase of 24% from the prior year. Almost 9 in 10 hospitals had complied with the consumer-shoppable data requirement by early 2022. Larger hospitals and public hospitals had lower probabilities of baseline compliance with the machine-readable and consumer-shoppable requirements, respectively, although public hospitals were significantly more likely to become compliant with the consumer-shoppable requirement by 2022. Higher hospital market concentration was also associated with higher baseline compliance for both the machine-readable and consumer-shoppable requirements. Furthermore, our analyses found that hospitals with certain electronic health record systems were more likely to comply with the consumer-shoppable requirement in 2021 and became increasingly compliant with the machine-readable requirement in 2022. Finally, we found that hospitals with a larger estimated penalty were more likely to become compliant with the machine-readable requirement.</p><p><strong>Practical applications: </strong>Longitudinal analyses of compliance with the federal price transparency rule are valuable for monitoring changes in hospitals' behavior and assessing whether compliance changes vary systematically for specific types of hospitals and/or market structures. Our results suggest a trend toward increased hospital compliance between 2021 and 2022. Although hospitals perceive the consumer-shopping tools as being the most impactful, the value of this information depends on whether it is comprehensible and comparable across hospitals. The new price transparency rule has facilitated the creation of new data that have the potential to significantly alte
目标:从 2021 年 1 月 1 日起,美国医疗保险与医疗补助服务中心要求大多数美国医院在其网站上公布价格信息,以帮助消费者做出服务决策,并改变与医疗保险公司的谈判方式。在本研究中,我们评估了联邦价格透明规定颁布第一年后医院遵守规定的变化情况,在此期间,医疗保险与医疗补助服务中心提高了对不遵守规定者的处罚力度:我们使用具有全国代表性的 470 家医院的随机样本,评估了 2022 年第一季度医院透明度规则两部分(发布机器可读价格数据库和消费者购物工具)的合规情况,并与 2021 年第一季度的基线水平进行了比较。利用美国医院协会和 Clarivate 的数据,我们接下来评估了医院因素(所有权、床位数、系统成员资格、教学状态、电子病历系统类型)、市场因素(医院和保险公司市场集中度)以及不合规处罚的估计变化对合规性的影响:到 2022 年初,46% 的医院发布了机器可读数据和消费者可购数据,比上一年增加了 24%。到 2022 年初,每 10 家医院中就有近 9 家遵守了消费者可查询数据的要求。规模较大的医院和公立医院分别符合机器可读和消费者可剪切要求的基线概率较低,但公立医院到 2022 年符合消费者可剪切要求的概率明显更高。医院市场集中度越高,符合机器可读和消费者可签要求的基线概率也越高。此外,我们的分析还发现,拥有特定电子病历系统的医院更有可能在 2021 年符合消费者可签要求,并在 2022 年越来越符合机器可读要求。最后,我们发现,估计罚金较高的医院更有可能遵守机器可读要求:对联邦价格透明规则的合规性进行纵向分析,对于监测医院行为的变化以及评估特定类型医院和/或市场结构的合规性变化是否存在系统性差异非常有价值。我们的研究结果表明,在 2021 年至 2022 年期间,医院的合规性呈上升趋势。尽管医院认为消费者购物工具的影响最大,但这些信息的价值取决于医院是否能够理解这些信息,以及这些信息在不同医院之间是否具有可比性。新的价格透明度规则促进了新数据的产生,有可能极大地改变医院的竞争格局,并可能要求医院领导者考虑如何改变其与支付方和患者接触的组织战略。最后,提高价格透明度很可能会促进有关价格差异、可负担性和医疗市场监管作用的国家政策讨论。
{"title":"Playing by the Rules? Tracking U.S. Hospitals' Responses to Federal Price Transparency Regulation.","authors":"Sayeh Nikpay, Caitlin Carroll, Ezra Golberstein, Jean Marie Abraham","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00014","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00014","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Goal: &lt;/strong&gt;As of January 1, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires most U.S. hospitals to publish pricing information on their website to help consumers make decisions regarding services and to transform negotiations with health insurers. For this study, we evaluated changes in hospitals' compliance with the federal price transparency rule after the first year of enactment, during which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services increased the penalty for noncompliance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Using a nationally representative random sample of 470 hospitals, we assessed compliance with both parts of the hospital transparency rule (publishing a machine-readable price database and a consumer shopping tool) in the first quarter of 2022 and compared its baseline level in the first quarter of 2021. Using data from the American Hospital Association and Clarivate, we next assessed how compliance varied by hospital factors (ownership, number of beds, system membership, teaching status, type of electronic health record system), market factors (hospital and insurer market concentration), and the estimated change in penalty for noncompliance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Principal findings: &lt;/strong&gt;By early 2022, 46% of hospitals had posted both machine-readable and consumer-shoppable data, an increase of 24% from the prior year. Almost 9 in 10 hospitals had complied with the consumer-shoppable data requirement by early 2022. Larger hospitals and public hospitals had lower probabilities of baseline compliance with the machine-readable and consumer-shoppable requirements, respectively, although public hospitals were significantly more likely to become compliant with the consumer-shoppable requirement by 2022. Higher hospital market concentration was also associated with higher baseline compliance for both the machine-readable and consumer-shoppable requirements. Furthermore, our analyses found that hospitals with certain electronic health record systems were more likely to comply with the consumer-shoppable requirement in 2021 and became increasingly compliant with the machine-readable requirement in 2022. Finally, we found that hospitals with a larger estimated penalty were more likely to become compliant with the machine-readable requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Practical applications: &lt;/strong&gt;Longitudinal analyses of compliance with the federal price transparency rule are valuable for monitoring changes in hospitals' behavior and assessing whether compliance changes vary systematically for specific types of hospitals and/or market structures. Our results suggest a trend toward increased hospital compliance between 2021 and 2022. Although hospitals perceive the consumer-shopping tools as being the most impactful, the value of this information depends on whether it is comprehensible and comparable across hospitals. The new price transparency rule has facilitated the creation of new data that have the potential to significantly alte","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"45-58"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Factors Associated With Healthcare Clinician Stress and Resilience: A Scoping Review. 与医护人员压力和复原力相关的因素:范围审查。
IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00020
Timothy J Usset, R Greg Stratton, Sarah Knapp, Gabrielle Schwartzman, Sunil K Yadav, Benjamin J Schaefer, J Irene Harris, George Fitchett

Goal: Clinician stress and resilience have been the subjects of significant research and interest in the past several decades. We aimed to understand the factors that contribute to clinician stress and resilience in order to appropriately guide potential interventions.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review (n = 42) of published reviews of research on clinician distress and resilience using the methodology of Peters and colleagues (2020). Our team examined these reviews using the National Academy of Medicine's framework for clinician well-being and resilience.

Principal findings: We found that organizational factors, learning/practice environment, and healthcare responsibilities were three of the top four factors identified in the reviews as contributing to clinician distress. Learning/practice environment and organizational factors were two of the top four factors identified in the reviews as contributing to their resilience.

Practical applications: Clinicians continue to face numerous external challenges that complicate their work. Further research, practice, and policy changes are indicated to improve practice environments for healthcare clinicians. Healthcare leaders need to promote resources for organizational and system-level changes to improve clinician well-being.

目标:在过去的几十年中,临床医生的压力和抗压能力一直是重要的研究对象和关注点。我们旨在了解造成临床医生压力和抗压能力的因素,以便为潜在的干预措施提供适当的指导:我们采用彼得斯及其同事(2020 年)的方法,对已发表的临床医师压力和抗压能力研究综述进行了范围界定(n = 42)。我们的团队使用美国国家医学院的临床医师福祉和复原力框架对这些综述进行了研究:我们发现,组织因素、学习/执业环境和医疗保健责任是综述中指出的导致临床医生痛苦的四大因素中的三个。而学习/执业环境和组织因素则是评论中指出的有助于提高临床医生复原力的四大因素中的两大因素:临床医生仍然面临着许多外部挑战,这些挑战使他们的工作变得更加复杂。需要进一步开展研究、实践和政策变革,以改善医疗保健临床医生的实践环境。医疗保健领导者需要促进组织和系统层面的变革资源,以改善临床医生的福祉。
{"title":"Factors Associated With Healthcare Clinician Stress and Resilience: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Timothy J Usset, R Greg Stratton, Sarah Knapp, Gabrielle Schwartzman, Sunil K Yadav, Benjamin J Schaefer, J Irene Harris, George Fitchett","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00020","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00020","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goal: </strong>Clinician stress and resilience have been the subjects of significant research and interest in the past several decades. We aimed to understand the factors that contribute to clinician stress and resilience in order to appropriately guide potential interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review (n = 42) of published reviews of research on clinician distress and resilience using the methodology of Peters and colleagues (2020). Our team examined these reviews using the National Academy of Medicine's framework for clinician well-being and resilience.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>We found that organizational factors, learning/practice environment, and healthcare responsibilities were three of the top four factors identified in the reviews as contributing to clinician distress. Learning/practice environment and organizational factors were two of the top four factors identified in the reviews as contributing to their resilience.</p><p><strong>Practical applications: </strong>Clinicians continue to face numerous external challenges that complicate their work. Further research, practice, and policy changes are indicated to improve practice environments for healthcare clinicians. Healthcare leaders need to promote resources for organizational and system-level changes to improve clinician well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"12-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Financial Performance of Accountable Care Organizations: A 5-Year National Empirical Analysis. 责任医疗组织的财务绩效:为期 5 年的全国实证分析。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-22-00141
Joseph Coyne, Roee Gutman, Christopher Ferraro, David Muhlestein

Goals: Of 513 accountable care organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) in 2020, 67% generated a positive shared savings of approximately $2.3 billion. This research aimed to examine their financial performance trends and drivers over time.

Methods: The unit of analysis was the ACO in each year of the study period from 2016 to 2020. The dependent variable was the ACOs' total shared savings earned annually per beneficiary. The independent variables included ACO age, risk model, clinician staffing type, and provider type (hybrid, hospital-led, or physician-led). Covariates were the average risk score among beneficiaries, payer type, and calendar year. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) public use files (PUFs) and a commercial healthcare data aggregator were the data sources.

Results: ACOs' earned shared savings grew annually by 35%, while the proportions of ACOs with positive shared savings grew by 21%. For 1-year increase in ACO age, an additional $0.57 of shared savings per beneficiary was observed. ACOs with two-sided risk contracting were associated with an average marginal increase of $109 in shared savings per beneficiary compared to ACOs with one-sided risk contracting. Primary care physicians were associated with the greatest increase in earned shared savings per beneficiary. In contrast, nurse practitioners/physician assistants/clinical nurse specialists were associated with a reduction in earned shared savings. Under a one-sided risk model, hospital-led ACOs were associated with $18 higher average shared savings earning per beneficiary compared to hybrid ACOs, while physician-led ACOs were associated with lower average saved shared earnings per beneficiary at -$2 compared to hybrid ACOs. Provider-type results were not statistically significant at the 5% nominal level. No statistically significant differences were observed between provider types under a two-sided risk model.

Practical applications: For all ACO provider types, building broader primary care provider networks was correlated with positive financial results. Future research should examine whether ACOs are conducting specific preventive screenings for cancer or monitoring conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, obesity, mental disorders, and joint disorders. Such studies may answer health policy and strategy questions about the effects of incentives for improved ACO performance in serving a healthier population.

目标:在 2020 年参与医疗保险共同储蓄计划 (MSSP) 的 513 个责任医疗组织 (ACO) 中,67% 的组织产生了约 23 亿美元的正向共同储蓄。本研究旨在考察这些组织的财务绩效趋势和随时间推移的驱动因素:分析单位为 2016 年至 2020 年研究期间每年的 ACO。因变量为 ACO 每年为每位受益人赚取的共享节余总额。自变量包括 ACO 的年龄、风险模式、临床医生的人员配置类型以及医疗服务提供者的类型(混合型、医院主导型或医生主导型)。协变量包括受益人的平均风险评分、支付方类型和日历年。数据来源为美国医疗保险与医疗补助服务中心(CMS)的公共使用文件(PUF)和一家商业医疗数据聚合公司:ACO 获得的共享节余每年增长 35%,而共享节余为正的 ACO 比例增长 21%。ACO 的年龄每增加 1 年,每位受益人就能多获得 0.57 美元的共享节余。与采用单边风险合同的 ACO 相比,采用双边风险合同的 ACO 平均为每位受益人边际增加了 109 美元的共享节余。初级保健医生为每位受益人带来的共享节余增幅最大。与此相反,执业护士/医生助理/临床专科护士的共享节余则有所减少。在单边风险模型下,与混合型 ACO 相比,医院主导型 ACO 的每位受益人平均共享节余收入增加了 18 美元,而与混合型 ACO 相比,医生主导型 ACO 的每位受益人平均共享节余收入减少了 2 美元。在 5%的名义水平上,提供方类型的结果不具有统计意义。在双面风险模型下,未观察到不同提供者类型之间存在具有统计学意义的差异:对于所有 ACO 提供者类型而言,建立更广泛的初级医疗提供者网络与积极的财务结果相关。未来的研究应考察 ACO 是否正在进行特定的癌症预防筛查或糖尿病、高血压、心脏病、肥胖症、精神疾病和关节疾病等疾病的监测。此类研究可以回答卫生政策和战略方面的问题,即提高 ACO 业绩的激励措施对服务于更健康人群的效果。
{"title":"Financial Performance of Accountable Care Organizations: A 5-Year National Empirical Analysis.","authors":"Joseph Coyne, Roee Gutman, Christopher Ferraro, David Muhlestein","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-22-00141","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-22-00141","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goals: </strong>Of 513 accountable care organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) in 2020, 67% generated a positive shared savings of approximately $2.3 billion. This research aimed to examine their financial performance trends and drivers over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The unit of analysis was the ACO in each year of the study period from 2016 to 2020. The dependent variable was the ACOs' total shared savings earned annually per beneficiary. The independent variables included ACO age, risk model, clinician staffing type, and provider type (hybrid, hospital-led, or physician-led). Covariates were the average risk score among beneficiaries, payer type, and calendar year. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) public use files (PUFs) and a commercial healthcare data aggregator were the data sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ACOs' earned shared savings grew annually by 35%, while the proportions of ACOs with positive shared savings grew by 21%. For 1-year increase in ACO age, an additional $0.57 of shared savings per beneficiary was observed. ACOs with two-sided risk contracting were associated with an average marginal increase of $109 in shared savings per beneficiary compared to ACOs with one-sided risk contracting. Primary care physicians were associated with the greatest increase in earned shared savings per beneficiary. In contrast, nurse practitioners/physician assistants/clinical nurse specialists were associated with a reduction in earned shared savings. Under a one-sided risk model, hospital-led ACOs were associated with $18 higher average shared savings earning per beneficiary compared to hybrid ACOs, while physician-led ACOs were associated with lower average saved shared earnings per beneficiary at -$2 compared to hybrid ACOs. Provider-type results were not statistically significant at the 5% nominal level. No statistically significant differences were observed between provider types under a two-sided risk model.</p><p><strong>Practical applications: </strong>For all ACO provider types, building broader primary care provider networks was correlated with positive financial results. Future research should examine whether ACOs are conducting specific preventive screenings for cancer or monitoring conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, obesity, mental disorders, and joint disorders. Such studies may answer health policy and strategy questions about the effects of incentives for improved ACO performance in serving a healthier population.</p>","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"74-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Understanding Multilevel Factors Related to Retention Among the Direct Care Workforce: Incorporating Lessons Learned in Considering Innovative Interventions. 了解与留住直接护理人员相关的多层面因素:在考虑创新干预措施时吸取经验教训。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-22-00235
Julia I Bandini, Julia Rollison, Jason Etchegaray

Goal: This article explores how broad, contextual factors may be influential in the retention of direct care workers (DCWs; i.e., entry-level caregivers) who provide vital support to patients in healthcare settings. We reflect on lessons learned from an evaluation of a multisite intervention to improve retention among DCWs employed primarily in hospital settings at three health systems.

Methods: We evaluated a multitiered program for entry-level caregivers that included a risk assessment, a 4-day curriculum, and follow-up sessions, as well as workforce coaching at the three health systems. As part of our evaluation, we collected data on roughly 3,000 DCWs from the three health systems; the information included hiring date, any transfer date, and any termination date for each new DCW, as well as demographic information, position characteristics, and termination status and reasons for any termination. In addition, we collected information about organizational characteristics, including staffing and number of employees. We also conducted interviews with 56 DCWs and 21 staff members who implemented a retention program across each of the three health systems and remotely conducted virtual observations of the curriculum sessions at each system.

Principal findings: Although the program we evaluated focused on individual-level factors that may affect retention, our findings revealed other broader, contextual challenges faced by DCWs that they said would have an impact on their willingness to stay in their positions. These challenges included (1) job-related factors including limited compensation, aspects of the job itself, and the inability to advance in one's position; (2) health system challenges including the mission, policies, staffing, and organizational culture; and (3) external factors including federal policies and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Practical applications: As the direct care workforce continues to grow, interventions to improve retention should consider the interconnectedness of these multilevel factors rather than solely individual-level factors. In addition, further research is needed to rigorously evaluate any potential intervention and consider how such an approach can target DCWs in hospital-based settings who are most affected by the multilevel challenges identified. Finally, any intervention to improve retention must be also aligned to ensure equity, especially in this population of low-wage DCWs, many of whom are marginalized women and individuals of color.

目标:本文探讨了在医疗机构中为患者提供重要支持的直接护理工作者(DCW,即初级护理人员)的留任过程中,广泛的背景因素可能会产生怎样的影响。我们对三家医疗系统中主要受雇于医院环境的直接护理人员的留任情况进行了评估,并从中总结了多站点干预措施的经验教训:我们评估了一项针对初级护理人员的多层次计划,其中包括风险评估、为期 4 天的课程、后续课程以及三个医疗系统的劳动力辅导。作为评估的一部分,我们收集了三个医疗系统约 3000 名 DCW 的数据;信息包括每名新 DCW 的聘用日期、任何调动日期和任何终止日期,以及人口统计信息、职位特征、终止状态和终止原因。此外,我们还收集了有关组织特征的信息,包括人员编制和员工人数。我们还对三个医疗系统中实施留任计划的 56 名 DCW 和 21 名工作人员进行了访谈,并对每个系统的课程进行了远程虚拟观察:尽管我们评估的项目侧重于可能影响留任的个人层面因素,但我们的研究结果显示,社区保健工作者还面临着其他更广泛的、背景性的挑战,他们表示这些挑战会影响他们留任的意愿。这些挑战包括:(1)与工作相关的因素,包括有限的报酬、工作本身的方方面面以及无法在自己的岗位上晋升;(2)医疗系统的挑战,包括使命、政策、人员配备和组织文化;以及(3)外部因素,包括联邦政策和正在发生的 COVID-19 大流行病:随着直接护理人员队伍的不断壮大,提高留任率的干预措施应考虑这些多层面因素的相互关联性,而不仅仅是个人层面的因素。此外,还需要进一步开展研究,以严格评估任何可能的干预措施,并考虑这种方法如何能够针对医院环境中受多层次挑战影响最严重的直接护理工作者。最后,任何旨在提高留任率的干预措施都必须与确保公平相一致,尤其是在低工资的 DCW 群体中,其中许多人都是边缘化的女性和有色人种。
{"title":"Understanding Multilevel Factors Related to Retention Among the Direct Care Workforce: Incorporating Lessons Learned in Considering Innovative Interventions.","authors":"Julia I Bandini, Julia Rollison, Jason Etchegaray","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-22-00235","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-22-00235","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goal: </strong>This article explores how broad, contextual factors may be influential in the retention of direct care workers (DCWs; i.e., entry-level caregivers) who provide vital support to patients in healthcare settings. We reflect on lessons learned from an evaluation of a multisite intervention to improve retention among DCWs employed primarily in hospital settings at three health systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated a multitiered program for entry-level caregivers that included a risk assessment, a 4-day curriculum, and follow-up sessions, as well as workforce coaching at the three health systems. As part of our evaluation, we collected data on roughly 3,000 DCWs from the three health systems; the information included hiring date, any transfer date, and any termination date for each new DCW, as well as demographic information, position characteristics, and termination status and reasons for any termination. In addition, we collected information about organizational characteristics, including staffing and number of employees. We also conducted interviews with 56 DCWs and 21 staff members who implemented a retention program across each of the three health systems and remotely conducted virtual observations of the curriculum sessions at each system.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Although the program we evaluated focused on individual-level factors that may affect retention, our findings revealed other broader, contextual challenges faced by DCWs that they said would have an impact on their willingness to stay in their positions. These challenges included (1) job-related factors including limited compensation, aspects of the job itself, and the inability to advance in one's position; (2) health system challenges including the mission, policies, staffing, and organizational culture; and (3) external factors including federal policies and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Practical applications: </strong>As the direct care workforce continues to grow, interventions to improve retention should consider the interconnectedness of these multilevel factors rather than solely individual-level factors. In addition, further research is needed to rigorously evaluate any potential intervention and consider how such an approach can target DCWs in hospital-based settings who are most affected by the multilevel challenges identified. Finally, any intervention to improve retention must be also aligned to ensure equity, especially in this population of low-wage DCWs, many of whom are marginalized women and individuals of color.</p>","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"69 1","pages":"59-73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Exploring National Trends and Organizational Predictors of Violence and Mistreatment From Patients and Visitors. 探索病人和来访者暴力和虐待行为的全国趋势和组织预测因素。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-04 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00105
Katherine A Meese, Laurence M Boitet, J J Schmidt, Nancy Borkowski, Katherine L Sweeney
<p><strong>Goal: </strong>Rising incidents of violence and mistreatment of healthcare workers by patients and visitors have been reported. U.S. healthcare workers are five times more likely to experience nonfatal workplace violence (WPV) than workers in any other profession. However, less is known about the national trends in the incidence of violence and mistreatment in healthcare. The specific organizational and individual-level factors that relate to stress arising from these occurrences specifically by patients and family members are also not fully understood. The goals of this study were to examine national trends of violence toward healthcare workers, understand which populations are most vulnerable to stress from violence and mistreatment, and explore organizational factors that are related to these occurrences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from three sources: (1) The Bureau of Labor Statistics Intentional Injury by Another Person data for the period 2011-2020, (2) data from a large national workers' compensation claim services provider for the period 2018-2022, and (3) results from a survey distributed at a large medical center in June and July 2022. Data were represented graphically and analyzed using multivariate regression and dominance analysis to identify specific predictors of WPV and mistreatment among healthcare workers.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Of the total surveyed sample, 23.7% of participants reported mistreatment from patients or visitors as a major stressor and 14.6% reported WPV from patients or visitors as a major stressor. Stress from mistreatment and WPV was most frequently reported by nurses, employees aged 18 to 24 years other than nurses, those who identified as White, and those who identified as female or a gender minority. The emergency room (ER) showed the highest percentages of stress from mistreatment (61.8%) and violence (55.9%) from patients or visitors. The top predictors of stress from WPV and mistreatment by patients or visitors among healthcare workers ranked high to low were working in the ER, working as a nurse, a lack of necessary supplies or equipment, patient or visitor attitudes or beliefs about COVID-19, and working in a hospital-based unit.</p><p><strong>Practical applications: </strong>In addition to protecting employees as a moral imperative, preventing WPV is critical for organizational performance. Employee productivity is estimated to decrease up to 50% in the 6 to 18 weeks following an incident of violence, while turnover can increase 30% to 40%. An effective WPV prevention plan and a proactive approach to supporting the physical and mental health conditions that may result from WPV can mitigate the potential costs and exposures from these incidents. Organizations must also set clear expectations of behavior with patients and visitors by refusing to tolerate violence and mistreatment of caregivers. The impact of WPV can remain present and active for up
目标:据报道,病人和来访者对医护人员的暴力和虐待事件不断增加。美国医护人员遭遇非致命性工作场所暴力 (WPV) 的可能性是其他任何职业的五倍。然而,人们对全国医疗保健领域暴力和虐待事件的发生趋势却知之甚少。此外,人们还不完全了解与患者和家属因这些事件而产生的压力有关的具体组织和个人因素。本研究的目标是考察全国医疗工作者遭受暴力侵害的趋势,了解哪些人群最容易受到暴力和虐待造成的压力,并探索与这些事件相关的组织因素:方法:从三个来源收集数据:(1)美国劳工统计局 2011-2020 年期间的 "他人故意伤害 "数据;(2)一家大型全国性工伤索赔服务提供商 2018-2022 年期间的数据;(3)2022 年 6 月和 7 月在一家大型医疗中心发放的调查结果。数据用图表表示,并使用多元回归和优势分析法进行分析,以确定医护人员中WPV和虐待的具体预测因素:在所有调查样本中,23.7%的参与者表示来自患者或来访者的虐待是主要压力源,14.6%的参与者表示来自患者或来访者的WPV是主要压力源。护士、18 至 24 岁的非护士员工、被认定为白人的员工、被认定为女性或性别少数群体的员工最常报告受到虐待和 WPV 的压力。急诊室(ER)因病人或来访者的虐待(61.8%)和暴力(55.9%)而产生压力的比例最高。在医护人员中,从高到低排序的WPV压力和患者或访客虐待压力的首要预测因素分别是在急诊室工作、担任护士、缺乏必要的用品或设备、患者或访客对COVID-19的态度或看法以及在医院单位工作:除了在道德上必须保护员工外,预防 WPV 对组织绩效也至关重要。据估计,在暴力事件发生后的 6 到 18 周内,员工的工作效率会降低 50%,而人员流动率则会增加 30% 到 40%。有效的 WPV 预防计划和积极支持 WPV 可能导致的身心健康状况的方法,可以降低这些事件的潜在成本和风险。各组织还必须对患者和来访者的行为设定明确的期望,拒绝容忍暴力和虐待护理人员的行为。在事件发生后,WPV 的影响可能会持续 8 年之久。还需要政策层面的干预。目前,尽管一些州已将虐待医护人员的行为定为重罪,但联邦并未对医护人员的暴力行为提供保护。
{"title":"Exploring National Trends and Organizational Predictors of Violence and Mistreatment From Patients and Visitors.","authors":"Katherine A Meese, Laurence M Boitet, J J Schmidt, Nancy Borkowski, Katherine L Sweeney","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00105","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00105","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Goal: &lt;/strong&gt;Rising incidents of violence and mistreatment of healthcare workers by patients and visitors have been reported. U.S. healthcare workers are five times more likely to experience nonfatal workplace violence (WPV) than workers in any other profession. However, less is known about the national trends in the incidence of violence and mistreatment in healthcare. The specific organizational and individual-level factors that relate to stress arising from these occurrences specifically by patients and family members are also not fully understood. The goals of this study were to examine national trends of violence toward healthcare workers, understand which populations are most vulnerable to stress from violence and mistreatment, and explore organizational factors that are related to these occurrences.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Data were collected from three sources: (1) The Bureau of Labor Statistics Intentional Injury by Another Person data for the period 2011-2020, (2) data from a large national workers' compensation claim services provider for the period 2018-2022, and (3) results from a survey distributed at a large medical center in June and July 2022. Data were represented graphically and analyzed using multivariate regression and dominance analysis to identify specific predictors of WPV and mistreatment among healthcare workers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Principal findings: &lt;/strong&gt;Of the total surveyed sample, 23.7% of participants reported mistreatment from patients or visitors as a major stressor and 14.6% reported WPV from patients or visitors as a major stressor. Stress from mistreatment and WPV was most frequently reported by nurses, employees aged 18 to 24 years other than nurses, those who identified as White, and those who identified as female or a gender minority. The emergency room (ER) showed the highest percentages of stress from mistreatment (61.8%) and violence (55.9%) from patients or visitors. The top predictors of stress from WPV and mistreatment by patients or visitors among healthcare workers ranked high to low were working in the ER, working as a nurse, a lack of necessary supplies or equipment, patient or visitor attitudes or beliefs about COVID-19, and working in a hospital-based unit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Practical applications: &lt;/strong&gt;In addition to protecting employees as a moral imperative, preventing WPV is critical for organizational performance. Employee productivity is estimated to decrease up to 50% in the 6 to 18 weeks following an incident of violence, while turnover can increase 30% to 40%. An effective WPV prevention plan and a proactive approach to supporting the physical and mental health conditions that may result from WPV can mitigate the potential costs and exposures from these incidents. Organizations must also set clear expectations of behavior with patients and visitors by refusing to tolerate violence and mistreatment of caregivers. The impact of WPV can remain present and active for up ","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":" ","pages":"29-44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138489089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Burnout, Moral Distress, and Compassion Fatigue as Correlates of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Clinical and Nonclinical Healthcare Workers. 临床和非临床医护人员的倦怠、道德痛苦和同情疲劳与创伤后应激症状的相关性。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00098
Laurence M Boitet, Katherine A Meese, Megan M Hays, C Allen Gorman, Katherine L Sweeney, David A Rogers
<p><strong>Goal: </strong>Research has highlighted psychological distress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCWs), including the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). However, the degree to which these conditions have endured beyond the pandemic and the extent to which they affect the entire healthcare team, including both clinical and nonclinical workers, remain unknown. This study aims to identify correlates of PTSS in the entire healthcare workforce with the goal of providing evidence to support the development of trauma-informed leadership strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from June to July 2022 using a cross-sectional anonymous survey in a large academic medical center setting. A total of 6,466 clinical and nonclinical employees completed the survey (27.3% response rate). Cases with at least one missing variable were omitted, for a total sample size of 4,806, the evaluation of which enabled us to understand individual, organizational, and work-related and nonwork-related stressors associated with PTSS. Data were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression and dominance analyses to identify predictors of PTSS specific to clinical and nonclinical workers.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>While previous studies have shown that HCWs in different job roles experience unique stressors, our data indicate that the top correlates of PTSS among both clinical and nonclinical HCWs are the same: burnout, moral distress, and compassion fatigue. These three factors alone explained 45% and 44.4% of the variance in PTSS in clinical and nonclinical workers, respectively. PTSS was also associated with a lower sense of recognition and feeling mistreated by other employees at work in the clinical workforce. Concerningly, women and sexual minorities in the clinical sample exhibited a higher incidence of PTSS. In nonclinical workers, social isolation or loneliness and lower trust and confidence in senior leadership were associated with PTSS. Nonwork-related factors, such as exhaustion from caregiving responsibilities and financial strain, were also significantly associated with PTSS. Even after controlling for discrimination at and outside of work in both samples, we found that non-White populations were more likely to experience PTSS, highlighting a deeply concerning issue in the healthcare workforce.</p><p><strong>Practical applications: </strong>The primary objective of this article is to help healthcare leaders understand the correlates of PTSS across the entire healthcare team as organizations recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding which factors are associated with PTSS will help healthcare leaders develop best practices that aim to reduce HCW distress and strategies to circumvent trauma derived from future crises. Our data indicate that leaders must address the correlates of PTSS in the workforce, focusing attention on both those who work on the frontlines and those wh
目标:研究强调了新冠肺炎大流行对医护人员(HCW)造成的心理困扰,包括创伤后应激症状(PTSS)的发展。然而,这些情况在疫情之后的持续程度,以及它们对整个医疗团队(包括临床和非临床工作人员)的影响程度,仍然未知。本研究旨在确定整个医护人员中创伤后应激障碍的相关性,目的是提供证据支持创伤知情领导策略的制定。方法:数据收集于2022年6月至7月,在一家大型学术医疗中心进行横断面匿名调查。共有6466名临床和非临床员工完成了调查(回复率为27.3%)。遗漏了至少有一个缺失变量的病例,总样本量为4806,对其的评估使我们能够了解与PTSS相关的个人、组织、工作和非工作相关的压力源。使用有序逻辑回归和优势分析对数据进行分析,以确定临床和非临床工作者PTSS的预测因素。主要发现:虽然先前的研究表明,处于不同工作角色的医务人员会经历独特的压力源,但我们的数据表明,临床和非临床医务人员患创伤后应激障碍的最高相关因素是相同的:倦怠、道德痛苦和同情疲劳。仅这三个因素就分别解释了临床和非临床工作者PTSS变异的45%和44.4%。创伤后应激障碍还与临床工作中其他员工的认可感较低和受到虐待有关。值得注意的是,临床样本中的女性和性少数群体表现出更高的PTSS发病率。在非临床工作者中,社交孤立或孤独以及对高层领导的信任和信心降低与创伤后应激障碍有关。非工作相关因素,如照顾责任的疲惫和经济压力,也与创伤后应激障碍显著相关。即使在控制了两个样本中工作内外的歧视后,我们发现非白人人群更有可能经历创伤后应激障碍,这突出了医疗工作者中一个令人深感担忧的问题。实际应用:本文的主要目的是帮助医疗保健领导者了解整个医疗保健团队在组织从新冠肺炎大流行中恢复时PTSS的相关性。了解哪些因素与创伤后应激障碍有关,将有助于医疗保健领导者制定旨在减少HCW痛苦的最佳实践,以及规避未来危机带来的创伤的策略。我们的数据表明,领导者必须解决劳动力中创伤后应激障碍的相关问题,将注意力集中在一线工作人员和幕后工作人员身上。我们敦促领导者采用创伤知情的领导方法,以确保整个医护人员得到认可、支持和照顾,因为每个HCW在患者护理中都发挥着独特的作用。
{"title":"Burnout, Moral Distress, and Compassion Fatigue as Correlates of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Clinical and Nonclinical Healthcare Workers.","authors":"Laurence M Boitet, Katherine A Meese, Megan M Hays, C Allen Gorman, Katherine L Sweeney, David A Rogers","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00098","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00098","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Goal: &lt;/strong&gt;Research has highlighted psychological distress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCWs), including the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). However, the degree to which these conditions have endured beyond the pandemic and the extent to which they affect the entire healthcare team, including both clinical and nonclinical workers, remain unknown. This study aims to identify correlates of PTSS in the entire healthcare workforce with the goal of providing evidence to support the development of trauma-informed leadership strategies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Data were collected from June to July 2022 using a cross-sectional anonymous survey in a large academic medical center setting. A total of 6,466 clinical and nonclinical employees completed the survey (27.3% response rate). Cases with at least one missing variable were omitted, for a total sample size of 4,806, the evaluation of which enabled us to understand individual, organizational, and work-related and nonwork-related stressors associated with PTSS. Data were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression and dominance analyses to identify predictors of PTSS specific to clinical and nonclinical workers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Principal findings: &lt;/strong&gt;While previous studies have shown that HCWs in different job roles experience unique stressors, our data indicate that the top correlates of PTSS among both clinical and nonclinical HCWs are the same: burnout, moral distress, and compassion fatigue. These three factors alone explained 45% and 44.4% of the variance in PTSS in clinical and nonclinical workers, respectively. PTSS was also associated with a lower sense of recognition and feeling mistreated by other employees at work in the clinical workforce. Concerningly, women and sexual minorities in the clinical sample exhibited a higher incidence of PTSS. In nonclinical workers, social isolation or loneliness and lower trust and confidence in senior leadership were associated with PTSS. Nonwork-related factors, such as exhaustion from caregiving responsibilities and financial strain, were also significantly associated with PTSS. Even after controlling for discrimination at and outside of work in both samples, we found that non-White populations were more likely to experience PTSS, highlighting a deeply concerning issue in the healthcare workforce.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Practical applications: &lt;/strong&gt;The primary objective of this article is to help healthcare leaders understand the correlates of PTSS across the entire healthcare team as organizations recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding which factors are associated with PTSS will help healthcare leaders develop best practices that aim to reduce HCW distress and strategies to circumvent trauma derived from future crises. Our data indicate that leaders must address the correlates of PTSS in the workforce, focusing attention on both those who work on the frontlines and those wh","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"68 6","pages":"427-451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72016140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Banishing the Lifelong Harm of Childhood Trauma: A Treatable, Preventable Crisis. 消除儿童创伤的终身危害:一种可治疗、可预防的危机。
IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-23-00215
Melinda L Estes
{"title":"Banishing the Lifelong Harm of Childhood Trauma: A Treatable, Preventable Crisis.","authors":"Melinda L Estes","doi":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00215","DOIUrl":"10.1097/JHM-D-23-00215","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Management","volume":"68 6","pages":"384-389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72016137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Healthcare Management
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1