IF 6.5 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Operations Management Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1002/joom.1340
Deepa Goradia, Aravind Chandrasekaran
{"title":"Examining the role of single versus dual decision-making approach for patient care: Evidence from cardiology patients","authors":"Deepa Goradia,&nbsp;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

摘要

医疗保健领域的研究表明,医疗服务提供者与患者之间的重复互动有助于做出更好的决策,从而提高效率。迄今为止,还没有人在医院住院环境中研究过这些可实现连续性护理的重复互动。在住院期间,与病人治疗相关的决策通常由两个关键决策者做出:主治医生(AP)和手术医生(OP)。在单一决策法(S-DMA)下,主治医生和手术医生是相同的;相反,在双重决策法(D-DMA)下,主治医生和手术医生是不同的。近年来,由于排班冲突,美国医院越来越倾向于使用 D-DMA 而不是 S-DMA。尽管医疗运营管理之外的研究认为这两种方法都有好处,但它们对患者住院时间的影响尚不明确。在本研究中,我们通过调查 S-DMA 和 D-DMA 在患者住院时间(LOS)、治疗成本和死亡率方面对患者护理结果的影响来填补这一空白。我们的研究数据来自佛罗里达州,涉及 2014 年至 2016 年间 241 家医院的 9483 名 AP 和 18398 名 OP 治疗的 520554 名心脏病患者。在选择特定决策策略时,我们考虑了患者和医生的选择问题。我们的结果表明,平均而言,使用 S-DMA 可缩短患者的住院时间并降低治疗成本,但对死亡率没有影响。我们还发现,S-DMA 对低并发症和低过程不确定性的患者更有利,而 D-DMA 对高并发症和高过程不确定性的患者更有利。我们的结果经得起其他解释的检验。我们证明,在医疗保健服务中,单一决策者能带来益处,但在护理高并发症和高流程复杂性患者时,双决策者可能会带来益处。我们讨论了这些发现对在住院服务中适当部署 S-DMA 和 D-DMA 的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Examining the role of single versus dual decision-making approach for patient care: Evidence from cardiology patients

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Operations Management 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
62
审稿时长
24 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information To Fill a Hollow Core: Roles of Firm Knowledge When Outsourcing Core Component During Technological Change Correction to “An Investigation of Corporate Social Responsibility Conformity: The Roles of Network Prominence and Supply Chain Partners” Meaningful Theoretical Pathways for Research Contributions When Complexity Meets Complexity: COVID-19-Induced Supply Chain Disruptions and Strategy Portfolio Efficiency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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