Organizational ethics : healthcare, business, and policy : OE最新文献

The cost of new cancer therapies and drugs has risen sharply and somewhat alarmingly in the last five years. In those developed countries where healthcare systems are (primarily) publicly funded, this has caused legitimate concern among government administrators and politicians who must make decisions regarding funding. In the Canadian context, provincial Departments of Health are mandated to provide comprehensive healthcare services to all citizens out of a "fixed pot" of financial resources, which is determined annually as part of the provincial government's overall budget process. In recent years there has been increasing recognition among healthcare decision makers that the approval of funding for multiple new expensive cancer treatments is creating an "opportunity cost" for meeting the other legitimate healthcare needs of provincial citizens. In response to this reality, the Department of Health of the Canadian province of Nova Scotia created a Cancer Systemic Therapy Policy Committee (CSTPC) in 2005. The mandate of this committee is to make recommendations to the Nova Scotia Deputy Minister of Health regarding the public funding of new cancer therapies. In collaboration with consultants from the Dalhousie University Department of Bioethics, the committee developed a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making framework to promote and facilitate decision making that is explicitly informed by evidence, economics, and ethics--the "3Es"--in reaching and making recommendations.

Background: Setting priorities and the subsequent allocation of resources is a major ethical issue facing healthcare facilities, including the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare delivery network in the United States. Yet despite the importance of priority setting and its impact on those who receive and those who provide care, we know relatively little about how clinicians and managers view allocation processes within their facilities.

Purpose: The purpose of this secondary analysis of survey data was to characterize staff members' perceptions regarding the fairness of healthcare ethics practices related to resource allocation in Veterans Administration (VA) facilities. The specific aim of the study was to compare the responses of clinicians, clinician managers, and non-clinician managers with respect to these survey items.

Methods: We utilized a paper and web-based survey and a cross-sectional design of VHA clinicians and managers. Our sample consisted of a purposive stratified sample of 109 managers and a stratified random sample of 269 clinicians employed 20 or more hours per week in one of four VA medical centers. The four medical centers were participating as field sites selected to test the logistics of administering and reporting results of the Integrated Ethics Staff Survey, an assessment tool aimed at characterizing a broad range of ethical practices within a healthcare organization.

Results: In general, clinicians were more critical than clinician managers or non-clinician managers of the institutions' allocation processes and of the impact of resource decisions on patient care. Clinicians commonly reported that they did not (a) understand their facility's decision-making processes, (b) receive explanations from management regarding the reasons behind important allocation decisions, or (b) perceive that they were influential in allocation decisions. In addition, clinicians and managers both perceived that education related to the ethics of resource allocation was insufficient and that their facilities could increase their effectiveness in identifying and resolving ethical problems related to resource allocation.

Conclusion: How well a healthcare facility ensures fairness in the way it allocates its resources across programs and services depends on multiple factors, including awareness by decision makers that setting priorities and allocating resources is a moral enterprise (moral awareness), the availability of a consistent process that includes important stakeholder groups (procedural justice), and concurrence by stakeholders that decisions represent outcomes that fairly balance competing interests and have a positive net effect on the quality of care (distributive justice). In this study, clinicians and managers alike identified the need for improvement in healthcare ethics practices relat

We propose that in order to systematically improve healthcare quality, healthcare organizations (HCOs) need work environments that are person-centered: environments that support the careprovider as well as the patient. We further argue that HCOs have a moral imperative to provide a workplace where professional care standards can be achieved. We draw upon a large body of research from several disciplines to propose and articulate a theoretical framework that explains how the work environment should be related to the well-being of patients and careproviders, that is, the potential mediating mechanisms. Person-centered work environments include: 1. Climates for patient-centered care. 2. Climates for quality improvement. 3. Benevolent ethical climates. Such a work environment should support the provision of patient-centered care, and should lead to positive psychological states for careproviders, including psychological safety and positive affect. The model contributes to theory by specifying relationships between important organizational variables. The model can potentially contribute to practice by linking specific work environment attributes to outcomes for careproviders and patients.

The need for effective leadership is a compelling priority for those who would choose to govern in public, private, and nonprofit organizations, and applies as much to the healthcare profession as it does to other sectors of the economy (Moody, Horton-Deutsch, & Pesut, 2007). Transformative Leadership, an approach to leadership and governance that incorporates the best characteristics of six other highly respected leadership models, is an integrative theory of ethical stewardship that can help healthcare professionals to more effectively achieve organizational efficiencies, build stakeholder commitment and trust, and create valuable synergies to transform and enrich today's healthcare systems (cf. Caldwell, LeJeune, & Dixon, 2007). The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of Transformative Leadership and to explain how this model applies within a healthcare context. We define Transformative Leadership and identify its relationship to Transformational, Charismatic, Level 5, Principle-Centered, Servant, and Covenantal Leadership--providing examples of each of these elements of Transformative Leadership within a healthcare leadership context. We conclude by identifying contributions of this article to the healthcare leadership literature.

The current state of health insurance coverage in the United States is deteriorating. Historically, efforts to address access at the federal level have met with insurmountable opposition. This article describes a model utilizing the Partnership Approach to Community Health Improvement to engage communities in developing creative ways of addressing local health issues, discusses the policy implications of such a model, and explores ethical issues inherent in the discussion of universal access. An argument is presented for a national dialogue seeking societal agreement to approach access and health from a perspective of solidarity.

Community health centers have provided high quality, cost-effective primary healthcare to underserved populations for over four decades. From the beginning, collaboration has been a central component of the community health center model of care. This article begins with an overview of community health center achievements and the drive for increased private-public partnerships in public health. The historic and current role of public-private partnerships within community health centers is described, with a particular focus on the Bureau of Primary Health Care initiatives (that is, the Health Disparities Collaborative and the Healthy Communities Access Program). Community health centers' establishment of partnerships in response to Hurricane Katrina and Medicare Part D is discussed. Finally, this article considers the continuing role of community health center public-private partnerships in the context of political and healthcare market shifts.