Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Acad Med ; 71(11): 1168-99, 1996 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-9217507

ABSTRACT

To gain a better understanding of the effects on medical schools of transformations in medical practice, science, and public expectations, the AAMC in 1994 formed the Advisory Panel on the Mission and Organization of Medical Schools and appointed six working groups to address relevant issues. This article is a report of the findings of the Working Group on Preserving Medical Schools' Academic Mission in a Competitive Marketplace, which was charged with exploring how medical schools could acquire and/or preserve an adequate patient base for teaching, research, and income generation in a competitive marketplace. The other groups' reports will appear in future issues of Academic Medicine. To understand the diversity of approaches that schools have taken to achieve this goal and to preserve their missions, the group interviewed representatives of nine medical schools, selected to represent a cross section of U.S. medical schools. The interviews took place on four occasions between June 1995 and March 1996. The information and comments shared by participants helped the working group gain insight into the fundamental issues it had been charged to address, including those of new delivery structures, what value schools offer to delivery structures, how education and research can be incorporated and supported financially, possible new pressures on relationships between medical schools and teaching hospitals, changes in faculty physicians' employment relationships and terms, and the role of the medical school in graduate medical education. In collecting and analyzing the data, the working group focused on the distinction between protecting an institution's existing enterprise and preserving an institution's core mission. This article gives a detailed overview of the information and comments each school presented, organized under the appropriate question. The working group's conclusions and commentaries on the findings follow. An appendix presents more detailed summaries of the schools' presentations, organised as case studies. The picture that emerges is complex. The working group concluded that medical schools will take a variety of approaches to define and preserve their missions. Most, but not all, medical schools will be able to secure the patient bases necessary to fulfill their missions even in a competitive marketplace. However, the nature of many of the schools is likely to change, and it is not clear whether the core missions of education and research will continue at their present levels at all schools.


Subject(s)
Schools, Medical/organization & administration , Costs and Cost Analysis , Economic Competition , Education, Medical/economics , Faculty, Medical , Hospitals, Teaching , Interinstitutional Relations , Managed Care Programs/organization & administration , Research/economics , United States
2.
Harv Bus Rev ; 70(3): 14-7, 20-3, 26-7, 1992.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10118001

ABSTRACT

After several days of meetings, J.F. Winchester, president of MDC Industries, felt no closer to a decision. MDC, a manufacturer of wall and ceiling panels, was considering whether to exercise an option to buy a new and safer wallboard technology. The product was being touted as revolutionary, but, Winchester wondered, could MDC afford to carry the flag? According to its inventor, Robert Goerner, Smoke-Safe would be a vast improvement over standard safety-rated wallboard. With almost the same flame-retardant properties, Smoke-Safe had the advantage of giving off almost no fumes or smoke in fire tests. And, Winchester knew, most fire-related deaths are from smoke, not flames. Indeed, the numbers were grimly persuasive: 82% of fire-related injuries involving standard panels were caused by smoke inhalation. What's more, Smoke-Safe would cost about the same to manufacture as MDC's current wallboard. But MDC had several other good options for spending the $5 million Goerner was asking; building plastics was only one of its profit centers. And the prospect of launching a campaign to change building codes in order to market Smoke-Safe, which could spark a fight with competitors, was daunting. Since its current wallboard gave MDC only 18% of the wallboard market, many industry insiders speculated whether MDC had the market clout to influence major cities to revise their codes. Six experts in marketing, law, and ethics advise MDC Industries on how it can balance ethical and business imperatives in making its decision.


Subject(s)
Consumer Product Safety , Decision Making, Organizational , Industry/organization & administration , Product Line Management/standards , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Economic Competition , Fires/prevention & control , Models, Theoretical , Organizational Innovation , Product Line Management/economics , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...