Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maximizing Effectiveness and Patient Value

  • Chapter
Management of Medical Technology

Part of the book series: Management of Medical Technology ((MOMT,volume 2))

  • 124 Accesses

Abstract

We live in exciting times, when technological achievements are a matter of daily occurrences, and when medical technology, in particular, is reaching new and never before imagined heights of accomplishments. The cumulative effects of advances in medical technology and in their management are felt in almost every aspect of our medical life, from cradle to old age. Successes in combating diseases and prolonging life, as well as the quality of artificially prolonged life are too many to list in this book, but for a glimpse into them which isgiven in the case studies in part III of the book.

It is your great good lucli, Cavaliere, lo see Matteo Barberini Pope, but we are even luckier that the Cavaliere Bernini lives at the time of our pontificate.

Pope Urban VIII to Gianlorenzo Bernini Architect of St. Peter’s Square in Rome (1623)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes To Chapter 10

  1. McKenna, R., Real Time: Preparing for the Age of the Never Satisfied Customer, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Herzlinger, R., Market-Driven Health Care: Who Wins, Who Loses in the Transformation of America’s Largest Service Industry, Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See, for example, Tannenbaum, A., Control in Organizations, New York: McGraw Hill, 1968. Also see Perrow, C., “The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1961, pp. 688-699; Etzioni, A., Modern Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Thompson, J., and W. McEwen, “Organizational Goals and Environment: Goalsetting as an Interaction Process,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1958, pp. 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hannan, M., and J. Freeman, “Obstacles to Comparative Studies,” in P. Goodman and J. Pennings (eds.), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yuchtman, E., and S. Seashore, “A System-Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1967, pp. 891–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. See, for example, Cameron, K., “Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness, Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 3, 1986, pp. 539–553.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Hammer, M., Beyond Reengineering, New York; Harper Collins, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Zammuto, R., Assessing Organizational Effectiveness, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Some authors advocate a different taxonomy. For example, Shortell and Kaluzny (1987) proposed three domains of activity: clinical care, financial management, and human resources management (Shortell, S., and A. Kaluzny, Essentials of Health Care Management, Albany, NY: Belman Publications, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, A., “Whose Ambulance Will Get Here First?”, TIME, July 7, 1997, pp. 64–65.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See, for example, Warner, K., and B. Luce, Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care, Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1982. Also see Wang-Ombe, J., “Economic Evaluation in Primary Health Care: The Case of Western Kenya Community Health Care Project,” Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1988, pp. 375-385; Birch, S., and C. Donaldson, “Applications of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Health Care: Departures from Welfare Economic Theory,” Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1987, pp. 211-225.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Weinstein, M., and W. Stason, “Foundation of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health and Medical Practices,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 286, 1977, pp. 716–721.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Birch, S., and A. Gafni, “Cost Effectiveness and Cost Utility Analyses: Methods for the Non-Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes and How We Can Do Better,” in E. Geisler and O. Heller (eds.), Managing Technology in Health Care, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, p. 63. Also see Mehrez, A., and A. Gafni, “Healthy Years Equivalent: How to Measure Them Using the Standard Gamble Approach,” Medical Decision Making,” Medical Decision Making, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp. 140-146.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See, for example, Hornberger, J., D. Redelmeier, and J. Peterson, “Variability Among Methods to Assess Patients’ Well Being and Consequent Effect on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 45, 1992, pp. 505–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. See Spilker, B., et al., “Quality of Life Bibliography and Indexes,” Medical Care, Vol. 28 (Supplement), 1990, pp. 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  17. For example, see Dexter, F., “Application of Cost-Utility and Quality-Adjusted Life Years Analyses to Monitored Anesthesia Care for Sedation Only,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1996, pp. 286–288. Also see Brenner, M., B. Curbow, and M. Legoro, “The Proximal-Distal Continuum of Multiple Health Outcomes Measures: The Case of Cataract Surgery,” Medical Care, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Supplement), 1995, pp. AS 236-244. These examples show the application of the outcome measures to specific treatments and areas of medical care, down to the individual illness and corresponding mode of treatment. Patient-centered outcomes allow for such a broad range of applications, from the specific ailment to DRGs (Diagnostic Related Groups), to overall social impacts.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shortell, S. et al., Remaking Health Care in America, 1996, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., p. 251.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See, for example, Smith, C., D. Hailey, and M. Drummond, “The Role of Economic Appraisal in Health Technology Assessment: The Australian Case,” Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 38, No. 12, 1994, pp. 1653–1662. Also see Coons, S., “Disease Management: Definitions and Exploration of Issues,” Clinical Therapeutics, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1996, pp. 1321-1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. JCAHO, National Library of Health Care Indicators, Oak Brook Terrace, IL, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  22. The commission’s task is also to ensure that indicators are evaluated for validity, reliability, and risk adjustment. In this context, see for example, Haug, M., “Elderly Patients, Caregivers, and Physicians: Theory and Research on Health Care Triads,” Journal of Health & Social Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1994, pp. 1–12. Also see MacArio, A., “Defining Value in Health Care: Outcomes,” International Anesthesiology Clinics, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1995, pp. 15-21; Patterson, L., H. Weiss, and P,. Schano, “Combining Multiple Data Bases for Outcomes Assessment,” American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1996, pp. 573-577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Geisler, E., “Measuring the Unquantifiable: Issues in the Use of Indicators in Unstructured Phenomena,” International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1995, pp.145-161.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See, for example, Blalock, H., Theory Construction: From Verbal to Mathematical Formulations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1969; and Blalock, H., and A. Blalock (eds.), Methodology as Social Research, McGraw Hill, NY, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  25. For example, Hammermeister, K., et al., “Why It Is Important to Demonstrate Linkages Between Outcome of Care and Processes and Structures of Care,” Medical Care, Vol. 33, No. 10, Supplement OS 5-16, 1996. Also see Hadorn, D., et al., “Making Judgments About Treatment Effectiveness Based on Health Outcomes: Theoretical and Practical Issues,” Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, Vol. 20, No. 10, 1994, pp. 547-554. These articles are pioneering some headway into the effort to establish a theoretical base for health outcomes and to move forward from simply using a “laundry list” of indicators.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See, for example, Popper, Sir K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, NY, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See, for example, Schriesheim, C., et al., “Improving Construct Measurement in Management Research: Comments and a Quantitative Approach for Assessing the Theoretical Content Adequacy for Paper-and-Pencil Survey-Type Instruments,” Journal of Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1993, pp. 385–417.

    Google Scholar 

  28. This phenomenon has had wide discussion in the literature. See Cook, T., and D. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Setting, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 1979. Also see Webb, E., et al., Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in Social Sciences, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See, National Library of Health Care Indicators, Joint Commission, op. cit., p. 193-194.

    Google Scholar 

  30. For example Hughes, M., L. Price, and D. Marrs, “Linking Theory Construction and Theory Testing: Models with Multiple Indicators and Latent Variables,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1986,m pp. 128–144. Also see Horn, S., “Measuring Severity: How Sick is Sick? How Well is Well?”, Health Care Financial Management, Vol. 40, No. 10, 1986, pp. 20-32.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See, for example, Van de Ven, A., and D. Ferry, Measuring and Assessing Organizations, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 19

    Google Scholar 

  32. See in particular, Mansfield, E., “Academic Research and Industrial Innovation,” Research Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1–12. Also see Mansfield, E., “Academic Research and Industrial Innovation: A Further Note,” Research Policy, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1992, pp. 295-296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Griliches, Z., (eds.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Birch and Gafni, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See, for example, Pavitt, K., “Science and Technology Indicators: Eight Conclusions,” Science and Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1984, pp. 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Robb, W., “How Good is Our Research?”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1991, pp. 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See, for example, Marsh, H., and D. Hocevar, “A New More Powerful Approach to Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis: Application o Second Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 1, 1988, pp. 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. See Martin, I., and S. Eroglu, “Measuring a Multidimensional Construct: Country Image,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1993, pp. 191–210; Chandhuri, S., and M. Ravallion, “How Well Do Static Indicators Identify the Chronically Poor?”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 53, No. 3, 1994, pp. 367-394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Frattali, C., “Ins and Outs of Outcomes,” Advances for Health Information Executives, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1997, pp. 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Donabedian, A., The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment, Ann Arbor, Ml: Health Administration Press, 1980, p. xi.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See, for example, Dayton, D., Information Technology Audit Handbook, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1995. Also see Kaplan, R., and D. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard—Measures That Drive Performance,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, 1992, pp. 71-79. Also see Kaplan, R., and D. Norton, “Using the Balanced Scoreboard as a Strategic Management System,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, 1990, pp. 75-87.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Geisler, E., and A. Rubenstein, “Methodology Issues as Conducting Evaluation Studies of R&D/lnnovation,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Technological Innovation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Washington DC, 1983. Also see Geisler, E., and A. Rubenstein, “The Use of Indicators and Measures of the R&D Process in Evaluating Science and Technology Programs,” in D. Roessner (ed.), Government Innovation Policy, St. Martin Press, New York, 1988, pp. 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See a description of the model for use in evaluating R&D organizations in Geisler, E., “Key Output Indicators in Performance Evaluation of Research and Development Organizations,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 47, No. 2, 1994, pp. 189–203. Also see Geisler, E., “An Integrated Cost-Performance Model of Research and Development Evaluation,” Omega, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1995, pp. 281-294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. See an example of public sector evaluation in Geisler, E., “Integrated Figure of Merit of Public Sector Research Evaluation,” Scientometrics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1996, pp. 379–395.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hall, R., Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 6th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996, p. 260.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See, for example: Trajtenberg, M., “A Penny for Your Quotes: Patient Citations and the Value of Innovations,” Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1990, pp. 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. The test includes such clinical performance indicators as mortality, surgical site infection, and pregnancy/maternal care among other indicators. Administrative indicators include degree of utilization, system integration, and financial stability, as well as satisfaction of various stakeholders.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, Doing the Right Things—Case Studies on Strategies for Maintaining Survey Readiness, Oak Brook Terrace, IL, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin, USA

    Eliezer Geisler

  2. University of Pennsylvania, USA

    Ori Heller

Authors
  1. Eliezer Geisler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ori Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Geisler, E., Heller, O. (1998). Maximizing Effectiveness and Patient Value. In: Management of Medical Technology. Management of Medical Technology, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5519-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5519-3_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7522-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5519-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation