PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10182838

Mergers--true integrations.

P Vigneau·D Shaw·C H Smeltzer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article is the second of a two part series on clinical consolidation in mergers. Part 1 addressed typical consolidations that occur in mergers and why clinical consolidation is so often overlooked. It discussed the quality and efficiencies improvements that can occur if clinical consolidation is carried out successfully. Part 2 details the steps of the clinical consolidation process that, if undertaken early and involving physicians and staff, will lead to a successful outcome.

Explore related subjects

Clinical MedicineEfficiency, OrganizationalHealth Facility MergerHealth Services Needs and DemandInstitutional Management TeamsMedical Staff, HospitalPlanning TechniquesQuality Assurance, Health CareSystems IntegrationUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Vigneau, D Shaw, C H Smeltzer. Mergers--true integrations.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10182838/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Common sense and figures: the rhetoric of validity in medicine (Bradford Hill Memorial Lecture 1999).

Austin Bradford Hill was once a friend to The Lancet, but, as occasionally happens, friends fall out. The great legacy of his association with the journal, however, was Principles of Medical Statistics. As each edition was succeeded by another--the first in 1937, the last in 1991--he seemed to shift his view about the influence of statistical method on clinical practice from one of assured certainty to one of modest advantage. That change paralleled a move away from an emphasis on the importance of internal validity in the randomized trial to one of understanding the inescapably practical significance of generalizability. Writers on medical research have explored notions of external validity in various ways. One view, for example, is to seek a close correlation between the participants in a clinical trial and patients seen in practice. The argument goes that such a correspondence has to be made before any decision can be taken about whether to apply the result of that trial to the clinical setting. Another view, first worked out by the American logician Charles Sanders Peirce, is that one must simply rely on the informed guess, based on a reasonable estimate of the limits of extrapolation. The tensions between and implications of these two different approaches are worked through using the example of coronary stents. A solution is, perhaps, to write explicit rules of interpretation that provide a framework for judging the strength of a claim to applicability. Five questions are posed, which try to lay a foundation for such a framework.

Clinical Medicine↗