Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30514304›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Varying viewpoints of Belgian stakeholders on models of interhospital collaboration.

Melissa De Regge, Kaat De Pourcq, Paul Gemmel, Carine Van de Voorde, Koen Van den Heede, Kristof Eeckloo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Exploring wait time variations in a prostate cancer patient pathway-A qualitative study.The International journal of health planning and management · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Chain Hospitals in the Health Industry: A Scoping Review of Principles and Definitions.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Melissa De ReggeStrategic Policy Cell, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium. melissa.deregge@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0375-5807
Kaat De PourcqFaculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Paul GemmelFaculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Carine Van de VoordeBelgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre, Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Koen Van den HeedeBelgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre, Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Kristof EecklooStrategic Policy Cell, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospitals are increasingly parts of larger care collaborations, rather than individual entities. Organizing and operating these collaborations is challenging; a significant number do not succeed, as it is difficult to align the goals of the partners. However, little research has focused on stakeholders' views regarding hospital collaboration models or on whether these views are aligned with those of hospital management. This study explores Belgian hospital stakeholders' views on the factors affecting hospital collaborations and their perspectives on different models for Belgian interhospital collaboration.

methodsQualitative focus group study on the viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators associated with hospital collaboration models (health system, network, joint venture).

resultsA total of 55 hospital stakeholders (hospital managers, chairs of medical councils, chair of hospital boards and special interest groups) participated in seven focus group sessions. Collaboration in health care is challenging, as the goals of the different stakeholder groups are partly parallel but also sometimes conflicting. Hospital managers and special interest groups favored health systems as the most integrated form. Hospital board members also opted for this model, but believed a coordinated network to be the most pragmatic and feasible model at the moment. Members of physicians' organizations preferred the joint venture, as it creates more flexibility for physicians. Successful collaboration requires trust and commitment. Legislation must provide a supporting framework and governance models.

conclusionsInvolvement of all stakeholder groups in the process of decision-making within the collaboration is perceived as a necessity, which confirms the importance of the stakeholders' theory. The health system is the collaboration structure best suited to enhancing task distribution and improving patient quality. However, the existence of networks and joint ventures is considered necessary in the process of transformation towards more solid hospital collaborations such as health systems.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInterinstitutional RelationsBelgiumClinical GovernanceCommunicationDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansIntersectoral CollaborationMaleQualitative ResearchCollaborationHospitalsNetworksPhysiciansStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID30514304
PMCPMC6280430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.