卫生保健机构中的官僚主义和平衡计分卡。

IF 1 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE Pub Date : 2020-04-08 DOI:10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121
Helena Costa Oliveira, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, Russell Craig
{"title":"卫生保健机构中的官僚主义和平衡计分卡。","authors":"Helena Costa Oliveira,&nbsp;Lúcia Lima Rodrigues,&nbsp;Russell Craig","doi":"10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explore the relationship between the balanced scorecard (BSC) and neo-bureaucracy by investigating whether the operationalization of the BSC incorporates \"neo-bureaucratic\" ideas and whether the BSC implemented in a Portuguese Local Health Unit (LHU) demonstrates a neo-bureaucratic approach.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>We conduct semi-structured interviews with LHU staff and analyse documents to assess whether features of bureaucratic organization were evident in the use of a BSC by the LHU.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We found nine bureaucratic features evident in the LHU's BSC. These were systematization, rationality, authority, jurisdiction, professional qualification, knowledge, discipline, transparency and accountability. The BSC used at the LHU demonstrated a neo-bureaucratic approach.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>Our study helps to demystify bureaucracy and overcome prevailing prejudices regarding some of its principles. Health care managers should recognize and endorse neo-bureaucratic principles in developing a BSC. They should recognize the BSC as involving a neo-bureaucratic approach. The BSC is a valuable management tool that hospital managers should find useful in fostering flexibility, collaboration, innovation and adaptation - all of which should help lead to improved healthcare outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47455,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bureaucracy and the balanced scorecard in health care settings.\",\"authors\":\"Helena Costa Oliveira,&nbsp;Lúcia Lima Rodrigues,&nbsp;Russell Craig\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explore the relationship between the balanced scorecard (BSC) and neo-bureaucracy by investigating whether the operationalization of the BSC incorporates \\\"neo-bureaucratic\\\" ideas and whether the BSC implemented in a Portuguese Local Health Unit (LHU) demonstrates a neo-bureaucratic approach.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>We conduct semi-structured interviews with LHU staff and analyse documents to assess whether features of bureaucratic organization were evident in the use of a BSC by the LHU.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We found nine bureaucratic features evident in the LHU's BSC. These were systematization, rationality, authority, jurisdiction, professional qualification, knowledge, discipline, transparency and accountability. The BSC used at the LHU demonstrated a neo-bureaucratic approach.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>Our study helps to demystify bureaucracy and overcome prevailing prejudices regarding some of its principles. Health care managers should recognize and endorse neo-bureaucratic principles in developing a BSC. They should recognize the BSC as involving a neo-bureaucratic approach. The BSC is a valuable management tool that hospital managers should find useful in fostering flexibility, collaboration, innovation and adaptation - all of which should help lead to improved healthcare outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

目的:我们探讨平衡计分卡(BSC)与新官僚主义之间的关系,通过调查平衡计分卡的运作是否包含“新官僚主义”思想,以及在葡萄牙地方卫生单位(LHU)实施的平衡计分卡是否体现了新官僚主义方法。设计/方法/方法:我们与LHU员工进行半结构化访谈,并分析文件,以评估LHU在使用平衡计分卡时官僚组织的特征是否明显。结果:我们在LHU的平衡计分卡中发现了九个明显的官僚主义特征。它们是系统化、合理性、权威、管辖权、专业资格、知识、纪律、透明度和问责制。LHU使用的平衡记分卡展示了一种新官僚主义的方法。原创性/价值:我们的研究有助于揭开官僚主义的神秘面纱,并克服有关其某些原则的普遍偏见。在制定平衡记分卡时,卫生保健管理人员应承认并支持新官僚主义原则。他们应该认识到平衡计分卡涉及一种新官僚主义方法。平衡记分卡是一种有价值的管理工具,医院管理者应该发现它在促进灵活性、协作、创新和适应方面很有用——所有这些都应该有助于改善医疗保健结果。
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
Bureaucracy and the balanced scorecard in health care settings.

Purpose: We explore the relationship between the balanced scorecard (BSC) and neo-bureaucracy by investigating whether the operationalization of the BSC incorporates "neo-bureaucratic" ideas and whether the BSC implemented in a Portuguese Local Health Unit (LHU) demonstrates a neo-bureaucratic approach.

Design/methodology/approach: We conduct semi-structured interviews with LHU staff and analyse documents to assess whether features of bureaucratic organization were evident in the use of a BSC by the LHU.

Findings: We found nine bureaucratic features evident in the LHU's BSC. These were systematization, rationality, authority, jurisdiction, professional qualification, knowledge, discipline, transparency and accountability. The BSC used at the LHU demonstrated a neo-bureaucratic approach.

Originality/value: Our study helps to demystify bureaucracy and overcome prevailing prejudices regarding some of its principles. Health care managers should recognize and endorse neo-bureaucratic principles in developing a BSC. They should recognize the BSC as involving a neo-bureaucratic approach. The BSC is a valuable management tool that hospital managers should find useful in fostering flexibility, collaboration, innovation and adaptation - all of which should help lead to improved healthcare outcomes.

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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: ■Successful quality/continuous improvement projects ■The use of quality tools and models in leadership management development such as the EFQM Excellence Model, Balanced Scorecard, Quality Standards, Managed Care ■Issues relating to process control such as Six Sigma, Leadership, Managing Change and Process Mapping ■Improving patient care through quality related programmes and/or research Articles that use quantitative and qualitative methods are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Participation in the digital transformation of healthcare: a review of qualitative studies. Governance of healthcare quality: exploring the relationships between hospital board performance and healthcare quality outcomes. Evaluating patient and medical staff satisfaction from doctor-patient communication. Lean six sigma and stroke in rural hospital - The case of Baruch Padeh Medical Center. Examining the behavioural intention of inpatients in Indian government hospitals.
×
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