Search results

The pupose of this paper is to present an overview of the main conceptual and methodological issues that underlie our current understanding of benchmarking initiatives in the field of health.

The paper is based on a pragmatic review of the literature and policy reports. It outlines some of the major conceptual problems associated with the use of benchmarking indicators and discusses how health policy research and practice is evolving to address the challenges raised, drawing examples from national and international benchmarking initiatives.

Benchmarking has become an intrinsic part of most developed health care systems, yet the impact of benchmarking initiatives on improvements in system performance and their integration within existing policy processes still need to be elucidated. Several methodological challenges remain in the field of benchmarking, many of them related to the selection and quality of indicators used to make comparisons both within and between health care systems. Further research and applications are needed to ensure that benchmarking in health fulfils its objective, namely to further our understanding of where to focus policy efforts in order to improve the performance of health care systems.

This paper poses the timely question of whether benchmarking initiatives are in fact guiding health policy towards the improvement of health care system performance. It draws from the policy literature and existing frameworks to offer an outline for the future evaluation of benchmarking initiatives by policy‐makers.

Discusses the long existing and confusing problems of establishing the relationship of who is, and who if not, a dependent worker. Reflects developments which have occurred in British law as it affects the employment field, plus an evaluation and analysis of some of the different types of employment relationships which have evolved by examining, where possible, the status of each of these relationships. Concludes that the typical worker nowadays finds himself in a vulnerable position both economically and psychologically owing to the insecurity which exists.

This article aims to explore the gendered dimensions of the heterogeneous path of non‐native graduates in nursing and medicine in the Portuguese National Health Service, including institutional factors like the process of credential recognition, the professional integration and internal labour market segmentation.

Biographical interviews with nurses and physicians (23 males and 35 females) from Spain and from some Eastern European countries who migrated to work in Portugal were conducted, and additionally semi‐structured interviews with 12 institutional participants to contextualise the experiential data.

The research highlights complex intersections between gender and the resources for action. Institutional conditions, like legal frameworks and the self‐regulatory mechanisms of the professions, and individual characteristics shape successful translation of foreign credentials into a new social and cultural context. The specific configurations may create gender traps that push women into low status professional segments and also new forms of inequality in the professions.

The development of successful professional action and agency in a socio‐culturally different health care labour market can be differentiated by gender, place of graduation and citizenship status. The factors identified in this small‐scale qualitative study would need further investigation.

The findings highlight new demands for integration policies for foreign‐trained professionals, such as policies to promote equal opportunities for women and men in the workplace.

The article reinforces women as professional participants in the international migration process and examines the opportunities for successful integration.

This paper aims to identify variation in the introduction of New Public Management reforms in healthcare and how this variation is related to country‐specific healthcare states.

The analysis uses the introduction of clinical standards in Britain and Germany as cases. The two countries are characterised by interesting differences in relation to the institutional set‐up of healthcare states and as such present ideal cases to explore the specific ways of how healthcare states filter clinical standards as tools of a generic managerialism.

Both countries have introduced clinical standards but, importantly, the substantive nature of clinical standards differs, reflecting differences in initial institutional conditions. More specifically, in Britain clinical standards have taken the form of two parallel policies, which strengthen hierarchy‐based governing and redefine professional self‐regulation. In Germany, by contrast, clinical standards come in one single policy, which strengthens the hybrid of network‐ and hierarchy‐based governing and to some extent also pure hierarchy‐based forms of governing.

First, with its cross‐country comparative focus, the analysis is able to identify systematic variations across healthcare states and the specific ways in which they impact on the introduction of New Public Management. Second, with its focus on clinical standards, the analysis deals with the governance of medical practice as one of the central areas of healthcare states.

Transformational and transactional leadership have become a fascinating issue for research since the work of Burns (1978) and Bass (1990). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of the concept of transformational leadership using examples of political leadership from South Asia. It is argued that the construct of transformational leadership is practically non-existent. And, if the concept of transformational leadership exists, it cannot be specifically applied to the leaders who gain popularity and achieve their goals. It is also argued that positive and negative connotation with transformational and transactional leadership, respectively, is false. The popular leadership may be good for “one-point agenda,” but not necessarily transform the system.

Qualitative methods, historical analysis, and discourse analysis have been employed to understand the leaders’ actions and behaviors.

The discussion around the empirical examples show that the popular-successful leadership does not necessarily a transformational leadership even though the leadership achieves the goals.

The popular or so-called transformational leadership may be good to achieve one-point agenda, but it may not bring the required change and fruitful results to all stakeholders if it is not backed by a transactional strategy. Future research may turn the attention in three directions: whether or not the achieved goals were transformational or transactional; evaluation of leaders’ behavior from the perspective of consequential leadership; and the role of transactional leaders in the growth and strengthening of micro and macro organizations.