4.1 Article

The cultural complexity of medical groups

Journal

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 200-213

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e31822f54cd

Keywords

competing values; medical groups; organizational culture; patient centered; quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Organizational culture is an important driver of organizational performance. However, little is known about the cultures of medical groups, which play an important role in health care. Purpose: We sought to characterize the cultures of medical groups and identify factors that influence these cultures. Methodology: We conducted a qualitative study of the organizational cultures of 8 U.S. multispecialty medical groups, using data collected during site visits and in-depth interviews with clinical and administrative staff (N = 69). Groups were randomly selected from those that participated in the second National Study of Physician Organizations using stratified sampling along three dimensions (i.e., ownership type, use of care management practices, and outcome performance). We analyzed the data to assess the presence of seven culture types-group, hierarchical, rational, developmental, quality oriented, patient centered, and physician centered-using the constant comparative method. Findings: We found that a multiplicity and diversity of cultures exist within and across multispecialty medical groups, with a dominance of patient-centered, physician-centered, rational, or quality-oriented cultures and less emphasis on group, developmental, and hierarchical cultures. Culture types that may seem antithetical, for example, patient-centered and physician-centered cultures, often coexisted within the same group. Across culture types, we found that six factors influenced medical group culture: financial, people, leadership, structural, processes, and environmental.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available