让一线医师参与价值提升:医师导向再投资的定性评估

IF 3.4 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
S. Vilendrer, Alexis Amano, S. Asch, C. Brown-Johnson, A. Lu, Paul Maggio
{"title":"让一线医师参与价值提升:医师导向再投资的定性评估","authors":"S. Vilendrer, Alexis Amano, S. Asch, C. Brown-Johnson, A. Lu, Paul Maggio","doi":"10.2147/JHL.S335763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Physicians can limit upward trending healthcare costs, yet legal and ethical barriers prevent the use of direct financial incentives to engage physicians in cost-reduction initiatives. Physician-directed reinvestment is an alternative value-sharing arrangement in which a health system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into professional areas of the physicians’ choosing. Formal evaluations of such programs are lacking. Methods To understand the impact of Stanford Health Care’s physician-directed reinvestment in its first year (2017–2018) on physician engagement, adherence to program requirements around safety and fund use, and factors facilitating program dissemination, semi-structured qualitative interviews with physician participants, non-participants, and administrative stakeholders were conducted July-November 2019. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed through an implementation science lens. To support contextual analysis of the qualitative data, a directional estimation of the program’s impact on cost from the perspective of the health system was calculated by subtracting annual maintenance cost (derived from interview self-reported time estimates and public salary data) from internal cost accounting of the total savings from first year cohort to obtain annual net benefit, which was then divided by the annual maintenance cost. Results Physician participation was low compared with the overall physician population (n=14 of approximately 2300 faculty physicians), though 32 qualitative interviews suggested deep engagement across physician participants and adherence to target program requirements. Reinvestment funds activated intrinsic motivators such as autonomy, purpose and inter-professional relations, and extrinsic motivators, such as the direction of resources and external recognition. Ongoing challenges included limited physician awareness of healthcare costs and the need for increased clarity around which projects rise above one's existing job responsibilities. Administrative data excluding physician time, which was not directly compensated, showed a direct cost savings of $8.9M. This implied an 11-fold return on investment excluding uncompensated physician time. Conclusion A physician-directed reinvestment program appeared to facilitate latent frontline physician innovation towards value, though additional evaluation is needed to understand its long-term impact.","PeriodicalId":44346,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Leadership","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engaging Frontline Physicians in Value Improvement: A Qualitative Evaluation of Physician-Directed Reinvestment\",\"authors\":\"S. Vilendrer, Alexis Amano, S. Asch, C. Brown-Johnson, A. Lu, Paul Maggio\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JHL.S335763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Physicians can limit upward trending healthcare costs, yet legal and ethical barriers prevent the use of direct financial incentives to engage physicians in cost-reduction initiatives. Physician-directed reinvestment is an alternative value-sharing arrangement in which a health system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into professional areas of the physicians’ choosing. Formal evaluations of such programs are lacking. Methods To understand the impact of Stanford Health Care’s physician-directed reinvestment in its first year (2017–2018) on physician engagement, adherence to program requirements around safety and fund use, and factors facilitating program dissemination, semi-structured qualitative interviews with physician participants, non-participants, and administrative stakeholders were conducted July-November 2019. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed through an implementation science lens. To support contextual analysis of the qualitative data, a directional estimation of the program’s impact on cost from the perspective of the health system was calculated by subtracting annual maintenance cost (derived from interview self-reported time estimates and public salary data) from internal cost accounting of the total savings from first year cohort to obtain annual net benefit, which was then divided by the annual maintenance cost. Results Physician participation was low compared with the overall physician population (n=14 of approximately 2300 faculty physicians), though 32 qualitative interviews suggested deep engagement across physician participants and adherence to target program requirements. Reinvestment funds activated intrinsic motivators such as autonomy, purpose and inter-professional relations, and extrinsic motivators, such as the direction of resources and external recognition. Ongoing challenges included limited physician awareness of healthcare costs and the need for increased clarity around which projects rise above one's existing job responsibilities. Administrative data excluding physician time, which was not directly compensated, showed a direct cost savings of $8.9M. This implied an 11-fold return on investment excluding uncompensated physician time. Conclusion A physician-directed reinvestment program appeared to facilitate latent frontline physician innovation towards value, though additional evaluation is needed to understand its long-term impact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Healthcare Leadership\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Healthcare Leadership\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S335763\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Healthcare Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S335763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的医生可以限制上升趋势的医疗成本,但法律和道德障碍阻碍了使用直接的经济激励措施来让医生参与成本降低计划。医生主导的再投资是一种替代性的价值共享安排,在这种安排中,卫生系统将医生主导的成本削减举措所节省的一部分再投资到医生选择的专业领域。缺乏对此类项目的正式评估。方法为了了解斯坦福大学医疗保健中心第一年(2017-2018)医生指导的再投资对医生参与度、遵守安全和资金使用方面的项目要求以及促进项目传播的因素的影响,行政利益相关者于2019年7月至11月进行了调查。访谈记录通过实施科学的视角进行了定性分析。为了支持定性数据的上下文分析,从卫生系统的角度对该计划对成本的影响进行了定向估计,方法是从第一年队列总节省的内部成本核算中减去年度维护成本(源自访谈自我报告的时间估计和公共工资数据),以获得年度净效益,然后将其除以年度维护成本。结果与整体医师群体相比,医师参与度较低(约2300名教员医师中有14名),尽管32次定性访谈表明,医师参与者之间的深度参与和对目标计划要求的遵守。再投资基金激活了自主性、目标和职业间关系等内在激励因素,以及资源方向和外部认可等外在激励因素。持续的挑战包括医生对医疗成本的认识有限,以及需要更加明确哪些项目高于现有的工作职责。不包括没有直接补偿的医生时间的管理数据显示,直接成本节省了890万美元。这意味着不包括无补偿医生时间的投资回报率是11倍。结论医生指导的再投资计划似乎有助于潜在的一线医生价值创新,尽管需要进行额外的评估来了解其长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Engaging Frontline Physicians in Value Improvement: A Qualitative Evaluation of Physician-Directed Reinvestment
Purpose Physicians can limit upward trending healthcare costs, yet legal and ethical barriers prevent the use of direct financial incentives to engage physicians in cost-reduction initiatives. Physician-directed reinvestment is an alternative value-sharing arrangement in which a health system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into professional areas of the physicians’ choosing. Formal evaluations of such programs are lacking. Methods To understand the impact of Stanford Health Care’s physician-directed reinvestment in its first year (2017–2018) on physician engagement, adherence to program requirements around safety and fund use, and factors facilitating program dissemination, semi-structured qualitative interviews with physician participants, non-participants, and administrative stakeholders were conducted July-November 2019. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed through an implementation science lens. To support contextual analysis of the qualitative data, a directional estimation of the program’s impact on cost from the perspective of the health system was calculated by subtracting annual maintenance cost (derived from interview self-reported time estimates and public salary data) from internal cost accounting of the total savings from first year cohort to obtain annual net benefit, which was then divided by the annual maintenance cost. Results Physician participation was low compared with the overall physician population (n=14 of approximately 2300 faculty physicians), though 32 qualitative interviews suggested deep engagement across physician participants and adherence to target program requirements. Reinvestment funds activated intrinsic motivators such as autonomy, purpose and inter-professional relations, and extrinsic motivators, such as the direction of resources and external recognition. Ongoing challenges included limited physician awareness of healthcare costs and the need for increased clarity around which projects rise above one's existing job responsibilities. Administrative data excluding physician time, which was not directly compensated, showed a direct cost savings of $8.9M. This implied an 11-fold return on investment excluding uncompensated physician time. Conclusion A physician-directed reinvestment program appeared to facilitate latent frontline physician innovation towards value, though additional evaluation is needed to understand its long-term impact.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Healthcare Leadership
Journal of Healthcare Leadership HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Efficient and successful modern healthcare depends on a growing group of professionals working together as an interdisciplinary team. However, many forces shape the delivery of healthcare; changes are being driven by the markets, transformations in concepts of health and wellbeing, technology and research and discovery. Dynamic leadership will guide these necessary transformations. The Journal of Healthcare Leadership is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on leadership for the healthcare professions. The publication strives to amalgamate current and future healthcare professionals and managers by providing key insights into leadership progress and challenges to improve patient care. The journal aspires to inform key decision makers and those professionals with ambitions of leadership and management; it seeks to connect professionals who are engaged in similar endeavours and to provide wisdom from those working in other industries. Senior and trainee doctors, nurses and allied healthcare professionals, medical students, healthcare managers and allied leaders are invited to contribute to this publication
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信