绩效管理与医院核心竞争力

“核心竞争力”是企业独有的、能为消费者带来特殊效用、使企业在某一市场上长期具有竞争优势的内在能力资源,是公司在发展过程中建立与发展起来的一种竞争优势。对医院而言,医院核心竞争力是医院长期形成的、蕴涵于医院内质中的、独具的、支撑医院过去、现在和未来的竞争优势,使医院在竞争环境中能够长时间取得主动的一种能力。当前的医疗市场竞争愈演愈烈,要提高医院的竞争力优势,就必须培育、维护和提升医院的核心竞争力。影响医院核心竞争力的因素很多,如绩效管理、人才战略、医疗技术、制度创新、服务理念等等,都对增强医院的核心竞争…     

实施“四管” 提升“四力”

随着医疗机构之间的竞争日趋激烈，医院之间的竞争已从传统的设备竞争、技术竞争上升为服务竞争和文化竞争，并成为医院核心竞争力的内在动力和源泉。医院想要在激烈的竞争中立于不败之地，实现快速、健康、协调发展，就要坚持以人文为本提升核心竞争力，充分发挥人文管理在医院核心竞争力中的决定性作用，使医院具备可持续发展和永续的竞争能力。本文从加强战略、人本、知识、细节四个方面管理，探讨提升医院竞争力的方法。     

医院核心竞争力构成要素与培育

医疗卫生体系的转型使医院的定位从单纯的社会福利型开始向公益经营型转变,因此了解医院核心竞争力要素,是医院转型后能否获得持续竞争优势的关键。本文分析了医院的核心竞争力要素,并提出了培育医院核心竞争力的途径。     

流程再造与医院核心竞争力

本文阐述医院核心竞争力与流程再造的内涵,分析两者的关系,着力讨论利用流程再造来提升医院核心竞争力,使医院保持持久竞争优势,持续稳固发展.     

走进医院核心竞争力

医院核心竞争力是近年来影响最大也是最重要的一个医院战略管理概念，本文介绍了医院核心竞争力的定义与内涵．以及医院核心竞争力的作用，并提出了如何构建医院核心竞争力，以体现自身的竞争优势，使之在激烈的市场竞争中立于不败之地。     

医院核心人才管理初探

新形势下，医疗市场的竞争越来越激烈，竞争的实质是医院间核心竞争力的竞争，说到底是人才竞争。医院人才中最关键的是核心人才，他们是医院核心竞争力的主要体现。核心人才的流失对医院核心竞争力的影响是巨大的，如何做好对核心人才的管理以防止其流失，是新时期人力资源管理的重要课题。     

医院卫生专业人才培养探析

<正>随着医疗卫生市场的建立和开放,医院已推向医疗卫生服务竞争的前沿,高标准的管理是竞争的核心,而培养人才、管理人才是竞争核心的核心。核心的竞争力能使医院保持长期稳定的竞争优势,获取稳定的效益。质量的建设和卫生专业人才培养是整个医院工作的重中之重,也是医     

医院核心竞争力与医院重组战略

通过对医院核心竞争力概念及意义的分析 ,论证了核心竞争力是医院持续竞争优势的源泉 ,阐明了医院核心竞争力形成的规律与途径 ,提出了医院核心竞争力对医院重组的要求。     

谈医院核心竞争力

未来医疗服务市场的竞争将是核心竞争力的竞争。面对国内外医疗市场一体化，我国医院今后的战略选择只能是大力培育核心竞争力。作者在对医院核心竞争力概念进行界定的基础上，分析了医院核心竞争力的特点及构成要素，提出了医院核心竞争力的构建措施。     

医院核心竞争力剖析

本文通过回顾和分析核心竞争力概念,分析医院的实际状况提出医院的核心竞争力是使医院获得持久竞争优势的能力,具体由影响能力、服务能力和创新能力三个部分所组成,此三种能力中又包含了更多的构成要素。用这三种能力构建的＂三力＂模型也可用来表达核心竞争力。     

Channel systems: an idea whose time has come in health care marketing.

Channel systems is beginning to emerge as a strategy that binds various entities in the delivery for health care, particularly hospitals and physicians. Hospitals are beginning to organize their efforts to help physicians in a channel systems context by focusing on value-added services to doctors that differentiate a hospital from its competitors and bind the doctors to the value-added hospitals. At the same time, doctors are beginning to realize their opportunity to leverage their admissions, purchasing, and patronage power in terms of obtaining value-added benefits and services that can help them compete more effectively in an increasingly aggressive health care marketplace.     

医院文化建设及其实施策略

医院文化建设具有凝聚、导向、辐射、引领和推动医院可持续发展的重要作用,医院文化建设要突显卫生系统的核心价值,不能急功近利,因为它是形象包装工程,故必须做到思想认同、行为认同与价值取向认同,真正体现＂以人为本＂的管理理念。     

医院经营管理中学术权力与行政权力的协调制衡

学术权力和行政权力是共存于医院的两种基本权力，两者本质特征上各具差异，存在态势上既重叠交叉又冲突分离，必然导致医院权力结构的复杂性和多样性。通过剖析我国医院经营管理中权力结构现状，努力实现学术权力和行政权力协调制衡，为探索符合时代性、地域性特点的中国医院权力运行模式提供借鉴。     

构建S-O-3P模式的现代医院人力资源管理体系的探讨

人力资源是医院的核心竞争力。然而我国目前大多数医院人力资源管理仍然是劳动人事管理,其弊端日益凸现。文章针对当前我国医院人力资源管理的现状,探讨如何构建S—O—3P模式的现代医院人力资源管理体系,以推动医院人力资源管理创新和变革,从而使医院获得持续健康发展的核心竞争力。     

面向集团医院的信息化规划研究——以同济医院为例

随着我国各地对医疗资源的有效利用越来越关注,各地医疗事业的不断发展,组建医疗集团、医联体已经成为促进各地医疗机构发展的有效途径,实现优势互补、资源共享和互惠互利,不仅可以促进医院的发展,也可以为患者的就医带来极大的便利。医院信息化作为医院管理重要的途径,因此面向集团化医院的信息系统成为新时期的医院信息系统规划的重要方向。本文按照集团医院的实际需求,将集团医院的信息化体系从网络规划和信息系统体系两个方面进行规划,对于网络可通过光纤网络实现内部业务网络;对于信息系统,规划了集团层面的信息系统和院区层面的信息系统,通过集团层面的信息实现院区之间的信息交互和业务协同,可实现不同类型的集团医院的管理需求。通过本文的规划,可以为集团医院的信息化建设提供有效的依据。     

A Theory of Waiting Time Reporting and Quality Signaling

We develop a theoretical model to study a policy that publicly reports hospital waiting times. We characterize two effects of such a policy: the ‘competition effect’ that drives hospitals to compete for patients by increasing service rates and reducing waiting times and the ‘signaling effect’ that allows patients to distinguish a high‐quality hospital from a low‐quality one. While for a low‐quality hospital both effects help reduce waiting time, for a high‐quality hospital, they act in opposite directions. We show that the competition effect will outweigh the signaling effect for the high‐quality hospital, and consequently, both hospitals' waiting times will be reduced by the introduction of the policy. This result holds in a policy environment where maximum waiting time targets are not binding. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

科研薄弱型医院科研管理特点及科研管理者需具备的素质

医学科学研究是打造医院核心竞争力的根本出路,科研管理工作在管理对象、管理内容、管理性质等方面具有其本身的特点,而科研较薄弱型医院的科研工作局面的特殊性又对其科研管理工作提出了特殊的要求,只有科研管理者不断提升自己的基本素质和管理水平,才能充分发挥科研管理职能,使临床医疗资源得到最好的利用,使临床医疗水平不断提高.     

Competition among hospitals in the United States

The value added by acute-care hospitals is in the form of specific procedures (therapy, operations, testing) and the bed care necessary to make the procedures effective. When more than one hospital exists in a local area (defined in many studies as a radius of 15 mi/24 km) they compete for market share, since greater market share has a positive effect on economies of scale, utilization rates, learning curves and levels of quality. Competition is not only with other hospitals (and 75% of all hospitals do have a competitor within 24 km), but also with doctors who now perform some procedures in their offices, and with specialized clinics. The first strategy is to attract physician allegiance since they act as gate-keepers, directing patients to specific hospitals. This is done through personal amenities, professional amenities and enhancement to personal prestige and income. This competition for physician allegiance has a direct effect on utilization rates (doctors want spare capacity to suit their needs), on the range of services and facilities offered (doctors want more support), and on length of stay (doctors want longer stays). All of these increase the hospital's costs. The second strategy is to enter into contracts with third-party payers who will direct their clients to specific or preferred hospitals. The negative effect is that in competitive markets such payers may be able to bargain prices down. However, hospital differentiation makes it difficult for payers to make complete substitutions among them. As well, since the payers compete for clients, they often use hospital alliances as a selling point and therefore are often cooperative rather than confrontational in their negotiations. One tactic used by hospitals is to stress quality of service. But since quality in health care is hard to measure, patients are often unable to make direct assessments of alternatives. Hospitals therefore often 'signal' quality in various ways which may, and often do, increase hospital costs. (Some of these signals also attract physicians). Price is not a major element in competition. Most other strategies and tactics raise hospital costs and therefore price. Pressure from payers is turned back through differentiation (preventing substitution) and hospital-payer alliances for clients. Health care comes in too many packages to allow effective price competition. A final tactic is to increase the range of services or facilities offered. Enhanced services attract doctors by offering more support; attract some patients direct; and help to recapture market share lost to specialized clinics.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

军队医院引入集团化管理模式的探讨

医院集团化管理以其有效资源整合、灵活政策措施、多种融资渠道、赢得的规模市场与效益,牢牢把握了市场竞争的主动权．被地方医院所广泛采用。由于军队医院自身特点．尚没见到军队医院实行集团化管理的报道。笔者认为,军队医院应该借鉴医院集团化管理的经验,结合实际,实行嫁接改造．集分散优势为集中优势、自我发展为携手共赢,通过资源有效整合与利用,提高核心竞争力,为保障战斗力奠定基础。     

Managing hospitals in turbulent times: do organizational changes improve hospital survival?

OBJECTIVE: To examine (1) the degree to which organizational changes affected hospital survival; (2) whether core and peripheral organizational changes affected hospital survival differently; and (3) how simultaneous organizational changes affected hospital survival. DATA SOURCES: AHA Hospital Surveys, the Area Resource File, and the AHA Hospital Guides, Part B: Multihospital Systems. STUDY DESIGN: The study employed a longitudinal panel design. We followed changes in all community hospitals in the continental United States from 1981 through 1994. The dependent variable, hospital closure, was examined as a function of multiple changes in a hospital's core and peripheral structures as well as the hospital's organizational and environmental characteristics. Cox regression models were used to test the expectations that core changes increased closure risk while peripheral changes decreased such risk, and that simultaneous core and peripheral changes would lead to higher risk of closure. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Results indicated more peripheral than core changes in community hospitals. Overall, findings contradicted our expectations. Change in specialty, a core change, was beneficial for hospitals, because it reduced closure risk. The two most frequent peripheral changes, downsizing and leadership change, were positively associated with closure. Simultaneous organizational changes displayed a similar pattern: multiple core changes reduced closure risk, while multiple peripheral changes increased the risk. These patterns held regardless of the level of uncertainty in hospital environments. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational changes are not all beneficial for hospitals, suggesting that hospital leaders should be both cautious and selective in their efforts to turn their hospitals around.