To make or buy patient safety solutions

Fareed, Naleef; Mick, Stephen S.

doi:10.1097/hmr.0b013e318225998b

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Organizations must develop strategies to manage or reduce dependencies on those external resources critical to survival (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Most health care studies applying the RDT framework define critical resources in terms of financial resources, but it has also been defined as reputation, prestige, status, and knowledge (Fareed & Mick, 2011). These health care studies also tend to investigate the impact of elements in the external resource environment on a dependent variable related to performance or organizational strategy (Yeager et al, 2014).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) described munificence in terms of the overall availability of critical resources in the environment. Limitations on critical resources in the environment can create uncertainty, which shapes the behavior of organizations in response to resource austerity (Fareed & Mick, 2011;Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In the context of PBB, we operationalize munificence as the size of the DHP budget, which funds all military hospitals in all service components, and can fluctuate annually based on congressional allocation (Mendez, 2018; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, 2017; U.S. DOD, 2019).…”

Section: Covariatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of performance-based budgeting on quality outcomes in U.S. military health care facilities

Decker

Schwab

Bazzoli

et al. 2023

Health Care Manage Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPerformance-based budgeting (PBB) is a variation of pay for performance that has been used in government hospitals but could be applicable to any integrated system. It works by increasing or decreasing funding based on preestablished performance thresholds, which incentivizes organizations to improve performance. In late 2006, the U.S. Army implemented a PBB program that tied hospital-level funding decisions to performance on key cost and quality-related metrics.PurposeThe aim of this study was to estimate the impact of PBB on quality improvement in U.S. Army health care facilities.ApproachThis study used a retrospective difference-in-differences analysis of data from two Defense Health Agency data repositories. The merged data set encompassed administrative, demographic, and performance information about 428 military health care facilities. Facility-level performance data on quality indicators were compared between 187 Army PBB facilities and a comparison group of 241 non-PBB Navy and Air Force facilities before and after program implementation.ResultsThe Army’s PBB programs had a positive impact on quality performance. Relative to comparison facilities, facilities that participated in PBB programs increased performance for over half of the indicators under investigation. Furthermore, performance was either sustained or continued to improve over 5 years for five of the six performance indicators examined long term.ConclusionStudy findings indicate that PBB may be an effective policy mechanism for improving facility-level performance on quality indicators.Practice ImplicationsThis study adds to the extant literature on pay for performance by examining the specific case of PBB. It demonstrates that quality performance can be influenced internally through centralized budgeting processes. Though specific to military hospitals, the findings might have applicability to other public and private sector hospitals who wish to incentivize performance internally in their organizational subunits through centralized budgeting processes.

show abstract

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Covariatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of performance-based budgeting on quality outcomes in U.S. military health care facilities

Decker

Schwab

Bazzoli

et al. 2023

Health Care Manage Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We excluded another 337 articles after reviewing the full-text citations largely because they neither identified individual NEs nor specified an existing framework (47%), or because they were non-scholarly (eg, media releases; 30%). Thus, our analyses were based on 367 articles 3 4 7–11 18–377. A full list of these articles and the information we extracted from them are found in online supplemental tables 1 and 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying a list of healthcare ‘never events’ to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNever events (NEs) are patient safety incidents that are preventable and so serious they should never happen. To reduce NEs, several frameworks have been introduced over the past two decades; however, NEs and their harms continue to occur. These frameworks have varying events, terminology and preventability, which hinders collaboration. This systematic review aims to identify the most serious and preventable events for targeted improvement efforts by answering the following questions: Which patient safety events are most frequently classified as never events? Which ones are most commonly described as entirely preventable?MethodsFor this narrative synthesis systematic review we searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and CINAHL for articles published from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021. We included papers of any study design or article type (excluding press releases/announcements) that listed NEs or an existing NE framework.ResultsOur analyses included 367 reports identifying 125 unique NEs. Those most frequently reported were surgery on the wrong body part, wrong surgical procedure, unintentionally retained foreign objects and surgery on the wrong patient. Researchers classified 19.4% of NEs as ‘wholly preventable’. Those most included in this category were surgery on the wrong body part or patient, wrong surgical procedure, improper administration of a potassium-containing solution and wrong-route administration of medication (excluding chemotherapy).ConclusionsTo improve collaboration and facilitate learning from errors, we need a single list that focuses on the most preventable and serious NEs. Our review shows that surgery on the wrong body part or patient, or the wrong surgical procedure best meet these criteria.

show abstract

“…Hence, larger, security guarantee, horizontally integrated and decidedly interconnected, public hospitals in the settings of condensed, high “public payer” presence, competitive, and resource-rich environments will more likely engage in patient safety innovations. [ 4 ]…”

Section: Rivalry Among Competitorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market forces in urological practice

Karthikeyan

2017

Indian J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To make or buy patient safety solutions

Abstract: This study helps hospital managers in their strategic thinking and planning in relation to current and future regulations related to patient safety. For researchers and policy analysts, our propositions provide the basis for empirical testing.

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

Impact of performance-based budgeting on quality outcomes in U.S. military health care facilities

Impact of performance-based budgeting on quality outcomes in U.S. military health care facilities

Identifying a list of healthcare ‘never events’ to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Market forces in urological practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About