Network among Institutions: The Case of TORINO Model

Abstract

The network is a model that may be able to respond to public needs by overcoming some limitations of other approaches. In literature, a generalizable model is often absent and not applicable to more than one productive sector. The case study uses the "Torino Model" to highlight the most frequent features and measurable elements of the network through a bottom-up coding approach by ATLAS software. The case is analyzed through interviews, documents analysis and observation of the functioning of the network. Sustainability, management and the main network outcomes are the elements that the study examines the case study. The analysis responds to the gap identified in the literature concerning the application to a system composed of institutions. The essential elements linked to know-how, the exchange of training and information and therefore the growth of intangible value constitute the essential basis for the establishment of a successful network, and this is also highlighted by the case study. The case study highlights how the network between institutions reduces costs by eliminating the duplication of services offered and increasing effectiveness and efficiency through increasing other factors such as the professional ability to respond to needs by immediately putting institutions and professionals in communication. The model confirms the ability to overcome the gap related to the network between institutions and between public and private, increasing the well-being of the local system.

Ordering Cost-Effectiveness Management Studies in Healthcare: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis

“…The issue of patient safety, however, is often faced with a progressive rationalization of spending due to fewer available resources and more significant health needs to respond (Atella et al, 2019;Citroni et al, 2019;Ottolini et al, 2016). In addition to the above, the progressive increase in the number of inhabitants in the coming years is added, with a likely need to evaluate the organizational and allocative choices accurately (Campra et al, 2019;Passel & D'Vera Cohn, 2008, pagg. 2005-2050Pickard et al, 2007;Simon et al, 2012).…”