卓越中心:心血管和骨科项目的评估工具。

Hospital technology series Pub Date : 1996-10-01
P L Ronning, J W Meyer
{"title":"卓越中心:心血管和骨科项目的评估工具。","authors":"P L Ronning,&nbsp;J W Meyer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As payers place more weight on contracting with hospital/health system programs that can differentiate themselves in the market as a \"true\" center of excellence (COE), it becomes imperative that hospitals/health systems understand the payer perspective about those programmatic attributes that can truly differentiate them from other programs. This report describes an evaluation and rating methodology for hospital/health system subspecialty programs, particularly cardiovascular and orthopedic programs, that can be used as a self-assessment tool. Using as its core a Rating Scale and Ranking Taxonomy, the evaluation and rating methodology presented here allow cardiovascular and orthopedic programs to do the following: Understand the differentiating characteristic of COE. Rate itself against detailed criteria that are being used by payers. Compare aspects of its program to premier or benchmark programs. Interpret the results to assist with strategic and operational direction. Allocate scarce resources to implement a subspecialty program that will attract payers. The Rating Scale and Ranking Taxonomy has 20 criteria for assessing cardiovascular programs and 18 criteria for orthopedic programs. The assessment process is designed to produce two important results: dialogue and action. The underpinnings of any action is a solid business plan that clarifies the program's vision, values, and mission. They are important because most programs will ultimately pursue very similar strategies and tactics; however, the most successful subspecialty programs and practices will be the ones that can execute the strategies and tactics quickly and effectively. In addition, the changes that are engendered by this targeted yet comprehensive assessment process can lead to improved clinical and functional outcomes for patients, as well as systemic improvements in the delivery of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":79643,"journal":{"name":"Hospital technology series","volume":"15 13","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Centers of excellence: an assessment tool for cardiovascular and orthopedic programs.\",\"authors\":\"P L Ronning,&nbsp;J W Meyer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As payers place more weight on contracting with hospital/health system programs that can differentiate themselves in the market as a \\\"true\\\" center of excellence (COE), it becomes imperative that hospitals/health systems understand the payer perspective about those programmatic attributes that can truly differentiate them from other programs. This report describes an evaluation and rating methodology for hospital/health system subspecialty programs, particularly cardiovascular and orthopedic programs, that can be used as a self-assessment tool. Using as its core a Rating Scale and Ranking Taxonomy, the evaluation and rating methodology presented here allow cardiovascular and orthopedic programs to do the following: Understand the differentiating characteristic of COE. Rate itself against detailed criteria that are being used by payers. Compare aspects of its program to premier or benchmark programs. Interpret the results to assist with strategic and operational direction. Allocate scarce resources to implement a subspecialty program that will attract payers. The Rating Scale and Ranking Taxonomy has 20 criteria for assessing cardiovascular programs and 18 criteria for orthopedic programs. The assessment process is designed to produce two important results: dialogue and action. The underpinnings of any action is a solid business plan that clarifies the program's vision, values, and mission. They are important because most programs will ultimately pursue very similar strategies and tactics; however, the most successful subspecialty programs and practices will be the ones that can execute the strategies and tactics quickly and effectively. In addition, the changes that are engendered by this targeted yet comprehensive assessment process can lead to improved clinical and functional outcomes for patients, as well as systemic improvements in the delivery of care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital technology series\",\"volume\":\"15 13\",\"pages\":\"1-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital technology series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital technology series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着支付方越来越重视与医院/卫生系统项目签订合同,这些项目可以在市场上脱颖而出,成为“真正的”卓越中心(COE),医院/卫生系统必须了解支付方对这些项目属性的看法,这些属性可以真正使他们与其他项目区分开来。本报告描述了医院/卫生系统亚专科项目的评估和评级方法,特别是心血管和骨科项目,可以用作自我评估工具。本文提出的评估和评分方法以评分量表和排名分类法为核心,允许心血管和骨科项目完成以下工作:了解COE的区别特征。根据付款人使用的详细标准对自己进行评估。将其程序的各个方面与主要程序或基准程序进行比较。解释结果,以协助战略和运营方向。分配稀缺的资源来实施一个能吸引购买者的亚专业项目。评定量表和排名分类法对心血管项目有20个评估标准,对骨科项目有18个评估标准。评估过程的目的是产生两个重要结果:对话和行动。任何行动的基础都是一个坚实的商业计划,它阐明了项目的愿景、价值和使命。它们很重要,因为大多数项目最终将采用非常相似的战略和战术;然而,最成功的亚专业项目和实践将是那些能够快速有效地执行战略和战术的项目和实践。此外,这种有针对性但全面的评估过程所产生的变化可以改善患者的临床和功能结果,以及在提供护理方面的系统改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Centers of excellence: an assessment tool for cardiovascular and orthopedic programs.

As payers place more weight on contracting with hospital/health system programs that can differentiate themselves in the market as a "true" center of excellence (COE), it becomes imperative that hospitals/health systems understand the payer perspective about those programmatic attributes that can truly differentiate them from other programs. This report describes an evaluation and rating methodology for hospital/health system subspecialty programs, particularly cardiovascular and orthopedic programs, that can be used as a self-assessment tool. Using as its core a Rating Scale and Ranking Taxonomy, the evaluation and rating methodology presented here allow cardiovascular and orthopedic programs to do the following: Understand the differentiating characteristic of COE. Rate itself against detailed criteria that are being used by payers. Compare aspects of its program to premier or benchmark programs. Interpret the results to assist with strategic and operational direction. Allocate scarce resources to implement a subspecialty program that will attract payers. The Rating Scale and Ranking Taxonomy has 20 criteria for assessing cardiovascular programs and 18 criteria for orthopedic programs. The assessment process is designed to produce two important results: dialogue and action. The underpinnings of any action is a solid business plan that clarifies the program's vision, values, and mission. They are important because most programs will ultimately pursue very similar strategies and tactics; however, the most successful subspecialty programs and practices will be the ones that can execute the strategies and tactics quickly and effectively. In addition, the changes that are engendered by this targeted yet comprehensive assessment process can lead to improved clinical and functional outcomes for patients, as well as systemic improvements in the delivery of care.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Taking care of business the enterprise way. Knowledge is power: comparative analysis software--a powerful tool for health care. 1998 Mammography Quality Standards Act final rule: summary of new requirements. Applying evidence-based medicine to acute stroke. A port in the storm: clarifying leadership expectations.
×
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