Private-public partnerships are increasingly seen as an important mechanism for improving community health. Despite their popularity, traditional evaluations of these efforts have produced negative or mixed results. This is often attributed to weak interventions or an insufficient period of time to observe an impact. This study examines two additional possibilities--the need for a well-articulated shared vision and the governance and management capabilities of the partnership itself. We conducted a midstream process evaluation of twenty-five community partnerships associated with the Community Care Network (CCN) Demonstration Program. We examined how the roles of a common shared vision, strong governance, and effective management influence a partnership's ability to achieve its objectives. The findings, based on both qualitative and quantitative analyses, underscore the importance of membership organizations' perceived benefits and costs of participation and management capabilities to the partnership's progress toward a vision. Based on the qualitative data, six key governance and management characteristics are identified that separate the top performing partnerships from the lowest performing ones. We explore the implications of this research for future evaluations of public-private community health partnerships.

Five years after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called for a redesigned U.S. health care system, relatively little was known about the extent to which hospitals had undertaken quality improvement (QI) efforts to address deficiencies in patient care. To examine the state of hospital QI activities in 2006, the authors designed and conducted a survey of short-term, general hospitals with 25 or more beds. In a sample of 470 hospitals, they found that many were actively engaged in improvement efforts but that these activities varied in method and impact. Hospitals with high levels of perceived quality, as reflected in assessments by their quality managers, were more likely to have embraced QI as a strategic priority, employed quality practices and processes consistent with IOM aims, fostered staff training and involvement in QI methods, engaged in an array of QI activities and clinical QI strategies, and maintained staffing levels favoring fewer patients per nurse.

This article examines the relationship between progress toward the Community Care Network (CCN) vision and "intermediate outcomes" of 25 community-based health partnerships (CCNs). Specific components of the CCN vision were community accountability, community health focus, creation of a seamless service continuum, and managing under limited resources. Four community outcome dimensions were evaluated: access, cost, health, and quality of service delivery integration. Overall progress toward the CCN vision was significantly positively related to average intermediate outcome score and most highly correlated with two dimensions: access and quality of service integration. Qualitative analysis suggests that CCN sites accomplished the most along two dimensions--access and health--noting that intermediate health outcomes generally were in health assessment and information rather than actual health status improvement. Keys to outcome achievement appear to be (1) clearly focused intervention; (2) explicit, ongoing outcome measurement; and (3) strong integration of separate intervention components.

Objective. To develop a taxonomy of governing board roles in U.S. hospitals. Data Sources. 2005 AHA Hospital Governance Survey, 2004 AHA Annual Survey of Hospitals, and Area Resource File. Study Design. A governing board taxonomy was developed using cluster analysis. Results were validated and reviewed by industry experts. Differences in hospital and environmental characteristics across clusters were examined. Data Extraction Methods. One-thousand three-hundred thirty-four hospitals with complete information on the study variables were included in the analysis. Principal Findings. Five distinct clusters of hospital governing boards were identified. Statistical tests showed that the five clusters had high internal reliability and high internal validity. Statistically significant differences in hospital and environmental conditions were found among clusters. Conclusions. The developed taxonomy provides policy makers, health care executives, and researchers a useful way to describe and understand hospital governing board roles. The taxonomy may also facilitate valid and systematic assessment of governance performance. Further, the taxonomy could be used as a framework for governing boards themselves to identify areas for improvement and direction for change.Key Words. U.S. hospitals, governing boards, taxonomy Developments, such as Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service, concern for medical errors and patient safety, demand for performance by third-party payers, and competition from physician-owned health care facilities, have placed governing boards of hospitals in a more critical position responsible and accountable for hospital affairs (Orlikoff 2005). Observers and students of governance generally agree that effective governing boards are the sine qua non of effective hospitals and that governing boards need to assume a more active role in order to successfully guide their organizations through the turbulent waters of today's health care environment Prybil 2006 While it is recognized that governing boards all have a clear goal--to build and sustain an effective organization--what they actually do to accomplish that goal differs greatly. In part because of the flexibility afforded them by state laws of incorporation and relatively weak oversight, hospital governing boards have interpreted and discharged their roles with an unsettling degree of variation (Weil 2003;Orlikoff 2005). Some boards act mainly as policy makers, focusing on establishing mission and a strategic direction for the hospital; others assume the role of boundary spanners, focusing on building and maintaining relations with key external constituencies and fundraising; while still others devote much of their time and attention to overseeing the performance of the hospital and its management team (Widmer 1993). In the past, the variability with which hospital boards discharged their roles could be tolerated, given the common perception that governance contributed little value to the organization or the community (Star...

Evaluations of multisite community-based projects are notoriously difficult to conceptualize and conduct. Projects may share an overarching vision but operate in varying contexts and pursue different initiatives. One tool that can assist evaluators facing these challenges is to develop a "theory of action" (TOA) that identifies critical assumptions regarding how a program expects to achieve its goals. Community Care Network (CCN) evaluators used the TOA to refine research questions, define key variables, relate questions to each other, and identify when we might realistically expect to observe answers. In this article, the authors present their national-level CCN TOA. They also worked with sites to help them "surface" their local TOA; the article analyzes the results to determine the content, clarity, extent of evidence base, and strategic orientation of theories articulated by different sites.