MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7038290082

Health technology procurement a system analysis of health technology procurement in hospitals in the Netherlands

2021· dissertation· en· W7038290082 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology) · 2021
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueAdvanced Differential Geometry Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
Mots-clésProcurementHealth technologyRequest for proposalStakeholderDirectiveHealth careProcess (computing)Medical equipmentInformation technology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Technology has an increasing role in the modern day health care system. Healthcare Technology Management (HTM) is an area of biomedical engineering including the domains of planning, needs assessment, selection, procurement, donations, inventory, installation and maintenance of medical equipment (WHO, 2017). This thesis deals with HTM in Dutch hospitals from the viewpoint of procurement of high-cost medical equipment. Procurement is considered the main shifting point between resources and being able to provide care with the available technology.Through literature search and semi-structured interviews, we study the decision process for health technology procurement from the hospitals perspective, to answer the following question: What procedures improve the effectiveness of the multi-layered decision making process of procurement of health technology in hospitals in the Netherlands? To be able to answer this question, three perspectives are described.First of all, actor and stakeholder interaction within the decision arena. In the hospital we can define three actor types: clinical, operational and business actors. The project team for procurement processes generally includes a project leader, medical technology and clinical physics, procurement and users. Although it is preferable to have business oriented project leaders, the role is often fulfilled by operational or even clinical actors.The second perspective concentrates on external influences on the decision arena. Two types of external influence are described: regulation and industry influence. The recently introduced agreement medical technology is considered to be the most influential piece of regulation, despite it being a directive and not a law. The agreement medical technology introduced new procedures in terms of risk analysis and justification and induced big steps towards an increasingly formalized procurement process. Despite the fact that the covenant and all other applicable regulation steers to set up procurement processes as functionally oriented as possible, relational capital appears to be important in practice. However, statements about industry interference are variable.The third and final perspective introduced a process view. Procurement processes can generally be described in six steps: specification, selection, contracting, ordering, monitoring, and, aftercare (Veeke and Gunning, 1993). However, two preceding steps are suggested which are: budgeting and initiation. Budgeting holds the allocation of a yearly budget to the division which is the result of a dialogue between applicants, an investment committee and planning & control. The initiation phase is a second gatekeeper in which the actual project initiation is justified and accepted. When we combine the three perspectives several lessons can be learnt.<br/>• Frequently a project leader lacks the competencies to lead a project properly. This has major influence on going through the project steps and the project outcome. A project leader should be a neutral actor who has no advising role towards the project team in terms of content. A competent project leader could increase buyer-supplier relationships which would decrease negative effects from disproportional social capital between physicians and manufacturers. It is suggested to consider full time project leaders with proper education to contribute to an effective purchasing process.<br/>• In the procurement process the ability to save financial resources decreases as is proceeded through the steps. Assuming that the added steps of budgeting and initiation are executed well, the specification step is crucial for the outcome of the project. Participants indicate however that the means of specification does not serve the goal. Detailed programs of requirements are the status quo but lack the ability to differentiate between options because too many basic requirements have to be registered. It is suggested to change towards a best value approach where the desired outcome is described.<br/>• A best value approach improves and demands buyer-supplier relationship. The specification and selection step melt together and the specification of solutions happens in cooperation with a manufacturer. Hospitals and the industry are dependent on each other for executing their purpose. Therefore cooperation between the two industries is already perceived as positive but legislation counteracts this. At this moment this is in this form not allowed for academic hospitals as they are subject to the tender law.<br/>We can conclude that an improved systems approach is essential for an effective procurement process and a project leader should provide in this. Having proper project lead creates the opportunity to experiment with the best value approach and break loose from the strict program of requirements homogenizing the healthcare technology market. Future research could test the potential of this method to increase opportunity for innovation for manufacturers, as well as hospitals.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Bibliométrie, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,859
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0130,018
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,321 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle