Power and Organizations Clegg, Stewart R; Courpasson, David; Phillips, Nelson X
2006, 2006-06-29, 2006-01-01
eBook, Book
A comprehensive account of power and organizations, unlocking power as the central relation of modern organizations and society. The authors present an excellent synthesis of organization, social and ...political theory to offer an overview of power and organizations that is historically informed, addresses current issues and is comprehensive in scope.
This open access book presents case studies of twelve organisations which the public have come to view as institutions. From the BBC to Doctors Without Borders, from the Amsterdam Concertgebouw ...Orchestra to CERN, this volume examines how some organisations rise to prominence and remain in high public esteem through changing and challenging times. It builds upon the scholarly tradition of institutional scholarship pioneered by Philip Selznick, and highlights common themes in the stories of these highly diverse organizations; demonstrating how leadership, learning, and luck all play a role in becoming and remaining an institution. This case study format makes this volume ideal for classroom use and practitioners alike. In an era where public institutions are increasingly under threat, this volume offers concrete lessons for contemporary organisation leaders.
The practice of pediatric/neonatal interfacility transport continues to expand. Transport teams have evolved into mobile ICUs capable of delivering state-of-the-art critical care during pediatric and ...neonatal transport. The most recent document regarding the practice of pediatric/neonatal transport is more than a decade old. The following article details changes in the practice of interfacility transport over the past decade and expresses the consensus views of leaders in the field of transport medicine, including the American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Transport Medicine.
The traditional hospital-based model of cardiac rehabilitation faces substantial challenges, such as cost and accessibility. These challenges have led to the development of alternative models of ...cardiac rehabilitation in recent years. The aim of this study was to identify and critique evidence for the effectiveness of these alternative models. A total of 22 databases were searched to identify quantitative studies or systematic reviews of quantitative studies regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation. Included studies were appraised using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and the National Health and Medical Research Council's designations for Level of Evidence. The 83 included articles described interventions in the following broad categories of alternative models of care: multifactorial individualized telehealth, internet based, telehealth focused on exercise, telehealth focused on recovery, community- or home-based, and complementary therapies. Multifactorial individualized telehealth and community- or home-based cardiac rehabilitation are effective alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, as they have produced similar reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared with hospital-based programmes. While further research is required to address the paucity of data available regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in rural, remote, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations, our review indicates there is no need to rely on hospital-based strategies alone to deliver effective cardiac rehabilitation. Local healthcare systems should strive to integrate alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, such as brief telehealth interventions tailored to individual's risk factor profiles as well as community- or home-based programmes, in order to ensure there are choices available for patients that best fit their needs, risk factor profile, and preferences.
Hospital Pharmacy Service (HPS) in Spain have been impacted by the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the outbreak has forced HPSs to adapt their outpatient consultation services ...to Telepharmacy to optimize clinical outcomes and reduce the risk of contagion. The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze the experience of HPSs with outpatient Telepharmacy during the COVID-19 pandemic and expose the lessons learned. Measures have been adopted in on-site outpatient pharmacy clinics to prevent exposure of patients and professionals to the virus. These measures are based on national and international recommendations on social distancing and hygiene. With regard to remote outpatient pharmacy services, teleconsultation with drug dispensing has been promoted based on five basic procedures, each with its advantages and limitations: home drug delivery from HPSs, with the advantage of universal access and the limitation of entailing a substantial investment in resources; HPS coordination with primary care pharmacists, which requires no investments but with limited access to some geographic areas; HPS coordination with community pharmacists based on a large network of pharmacies, which requires the patient to go to the pharmacy, without confidentiality being guaranteed for any patient; geolocation and hospital-based medication dispensing, which provides universal access and direct traceability, but entails investment in human resources; and HPS coordination with associations of patients, which does not entail any additional cost but limits the information available on the diseases of society members. Three main lessons have been learned during the pandemic: the satisfactory capacity of HPS to provide outpatient pharmacy consultation services in the setting of a public health crisis; the usefulness of Telepharmacy for the clinical follow-up, healthcare coordination, outpatient counseling, and informed dispensing and delivery of medication (with a high level of satisfaction among patients); and the need to foster Telepharmacy as a complementary tool through a mixed model of outpatient pharmacy consultation service that incorporates the advantages of each procedure and adapts to the individual needs of each patient in a context of humanized healthcare.
In January 2015, we created a multidisciplinary Aortic Center with the collaboration of Vascular Surgery, Cardiac Surgery, Interventional Radiology, Anesthesia and Hospital Administration. We report ...the initial success of creating a Comprehensive Aortic Center.
All aortic procedures performed from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2016 were entered into a prospectively collected database and compared with available data for 2014. Primary outcomes included the number of all aortic related procedures, transfer acceptance rate, transfer time, and proportion of elective/emergent referrals.
The Aortic Center included 5 vascular surgeons, 2 cardiac surgeons, and 2 interventional radiologists. Workflow processes were implemented to streamline patient transfers as well as physician and operating room notification. Total aortic volume increased significantly from 162 to 261 patients. This reflected an overall 59% (P = 0.0167) increase in all aorta-related procedures. We had a 65% overall increase in transfer requests with 156% increase in acceptance of referrals and 136% drop in transfer denials (P < 0.0001). Emergent abdominal aortic cases accounted for 17% (n = 45) of our total aortic volume in 2015. The average transfer time from request to arrival decreased from 515 to 352 min, although this change was not statistically significant. We did see a significant increase in the use of air-transfers for aortic patients (P = 0.0041). Factorial analysis showed that time for transfer was affected only by air-transfer use, regardless of the year the patient was transferred. Transfer volume and volume of aortic related procedures remained stable in 2016.
Designation as a comprehensive Aortic Center with implementation of strategic workflow systems and a culture of "no refusal of transfers" resulted in a significant increase in aortic volume for both emergent and elective aortic cases. Case volumes increased for all specialties involved in the center. Improvements in transfer center and emergency medical services communication demonstrated a trend toward more efficient transfer times. These increases and improvements were sustainable for 2 years after this designation.
Despite significant gains by pediatric collaborative improvement networks, the overall US system of chronic illness care does not work well. A new paradigm is needed: a Collaborative Chronic Care ...Network (C3N). A C3N is a network-based production system that harnesses the collective intelligence of patients, clinicians, and researchers and distributes the production of knowledge, information, and know-how over large groups of people, dramatically accelerating the discovery process. A C3N is a platform of "operating systems" on which interconnected processes and interventions are designed, tested, and implemented. The social operating system is facilitated by community building, engaging all stakeholders and their expertise, and providing multiple ways to participate. Standard progress measures and a robust information technology infrastructure enable the technical operating system to reduce unwanted variation and adopt advances more rapidly. A structured approach to innovation design provides a scientific operating system or "laboratory" for what works and how to make it work. Data support testing and research on multiple levels: comparative effectiveness research for populations, evaluating care delivery processes at the care center level, and N-of-1 trials and other methods to select the best treatment of individual patient circumstances. Methods to reduce transactional costs to participate include a Federated IRB Model in which centers rely on a protocol approved at 1 central institutional review board and a "commons framework" for organizational copyright and intellectual property concerns. A fully realized C3N represents a discontinuous leap to a self-developing learning health system capable of producing a qualitatively different approach to improving health.
IMPORTANCE: Only one-third of patients with complex psychiatric disorders engage in specialty mental health care, and only one-tenth receive adequate treatment in primary care. Scalable approaches ...are critically needed to improve access to effective mental health treatments in underserved primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 clinic-to-clinic interactive video approaches to delivering evidence-based mental health treatments to patients in primary care clinics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design with patient-level randomization. Adult patients treated at 24 primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists from 12 federally qualified health centers in 3 states who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and who were not already receiving pharmacotherapy from a mental health specialist were recruited from November 16, 2016, to June 30, 2019, and observed for 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: Two approaches were compared: (1) telepsychiatry/telepsychology–enhanced referral (TER), where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment, and (2) telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC), where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to the primary care team. TER included an adaptive intervention (phone-enhanced referral PER) for patients not engaging in treatment, which involved telephone outreach and motivational interviewing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survey questions assessed patient-reported outcomes. The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was the primary outcome (range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, recovery, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 1004 included participants, 701 of 1000 (70.1%) were female, 660 of 994 (66.4%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 39.4 (12.9) years. Baseline MCS scores were 3 SDs below the US mean; the mean (SD) MCS scores were 39.7 (14.1) and 41.2 (14.2) in the TCC and TER groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving TCC and TER (β = 1.7; 95% CI, 0 to 3.4; P = .05). Patients in both groups experienced large and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to 12 months (TCC: Cohen d = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; TER: Cohen d = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.02). For patients not engaging in TER at 6 months, there was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving PER and TER (β = 2.0; 95% CI, −1.6 to 5.7; P = .28). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this comparative effectiveness trial of patients with complex psychiatric disorders randomized to receive TCC or TER, significantly and substantially improved outcomes were observed in both groups. From a health care system perspective, clinical leadership should implement whichever approach is most sustainable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944
PDF
