طراحی الگوی ارزیابی عملکرد حاکمیت شبکه‌ای وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی
محورهای موضوعی : -مدیریت خدمات بهداشتی و درمانی
سلیمه لطیفی جلیسه
1
,
سعید جعفری نیا
2
1 - دکتری مدیریت دولتی، موسسه آموزش عالی رحمان رامسر، مازندران، ایران
2 - استادیار، گروه مدیریت منابع انسانی و کسب و کار، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: تحلیل مضمون, وزارت بهداشت, ارزیابی عملکرد, درمان و آموزش پزشکی, حاکمیت شبکه‌ای,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه: اهمیت سرعت، هم‌افزایی و کارایی در ارائه خدمات، پارادایم شبکه‌ای را به الگوی غالب بسیاری از دستگاه‌های دولتی و از آن جمله دستگاه متولی بخش سلامت تبدیل کرده است. هدف تحقیق حاضر طراحی الگوی ارزیابی عملکرد حاکمیت شبکه‌ای وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی است.روش پژوهش: این تحقیق به روش کیفی تحلیل مضمون انجام شده است. جهت‌گیری پژوهش توسعه‌ای و رویکرد پژوهش استقرا-قیاس است. مصاحبه‌های نیمه ساختار یافته با 14 تن از خبرگان وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی انجام شد. این تعداد به روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انتخاب شدند. روایی محتوای مضامین استخراجی 0/90 به دست آمد. پایایی بین دو کدگذار نیز87 درصد به دست آمد. تحلیل داده‌ها با نرم افزار مکس. کیو. دی. اِی انجام شد.یافته‌ها: پس از طی مراحل شش‌گانه تحلیل مضمون، 52 مضمون پایه و پنج مضمون سازمان‌دهنده (توسعه شایستگی 10 مضمون، برنامه‌ریزی موثر 7 مضمون، انعطاف‌پذیری ساختار و فرایند13 مضمون، تحقق اهداف 12 مضمون، پاسخگوئی موثر11 مضمون) احصاء و در نهایت الگوی ارزیابی عملکرد حاکمیت شبکه‌ای طراحی شد.نتیجه‌گیری: در الگوی ارزیابی عملکرد حاکمیت شبکه‌ای، پاسخگوئی موثر از مهم‌ترین مضامین و وجود ساختار پاسخگوئی حرفه‌ای از مهم‌ترین شاخص‌های آن است. توانایی همکاری چندجانبه با سازمان‌های ایجاد کننده شبکه و توانایی ارتباط موثر و تبادل اطلاعات از شاخص‌های مهم توسعه شایستگی است. توانایی جذب سازمان‌های جدید به ساختار شبکهوپایداری سیستم از شاخص‌های مهم انعطاف‌پذیری ساختار و فرایند است.هم‌چنین ارائه عادلانه خدمات فراگیر از مهم‌ترین شاخص‌های تحقق اهداف در الگوی ارزیابی عملکرد حاکمیت شبکه‌ای وزارت بهداشت است.
Introduction: The importance of speed, synergy, and efficiency in service delivery has made the network paradigm the dominant paradigm for many government agencies, including the health care system. The purpose of the present study is to present a model of network performance evaluation in network governance of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education.Methods: This was a qualitative content analysis study. Semi-structured interviews with exploratory orientation were conducted with 14 experts from the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. These were selected by purposive sampling. Content validity of extracted themes was 0.90. Reliability between the two coders was 87%.Results: After six stages of content analysis, 52 basic themes and five organizing themes (competency development of 10 themes, effective planning of 7 themes, flexibility of structure and process of 13 themes, realization of goals of 12 themes, effective accountability of 11 themes, effective accountability of 11 themes). Network rule was designed.Conclusion: In evaluating the performance of network governance, accountability and system stability are the most important factors. Health managers and policymakers can use the model provided in developing performance appraisal indicators.
1- WHO. Health in All policices (HIAP); Framework for Country Action; 2014.
2- Sørensen E & Torfing J. Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic through Met governance. Public Administration, 2013; 87(2).
3- Brinkerhoff DW, Bossert TJ. Governance: Concepts, Experience and Program Options. Bethesda, MD: Health Systems 20/20 Project; 2008.
4- Greer S.L, Wismar M, Figueras J. Introduction: strengthening governance amidst changing governance. In: Strengthening Health System Governance: better policies, stronger performance’. WHO: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2015.
5- Ellis JC. A history of film (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1990.
6- Minassians, HP. Network governance and performance measures: Challenges in collaborative design of hybridized environments, International Review of Public Administration, 2015; 20(4): 335-352, DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2015.1088689.
7- Turrini Alex, Daniela Cristofoli, Francesca Frosini, Greta N. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 2010; 88: 528–550.
8- Provan Keith, Amy Fish G, and Sydow J. Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management .2007; 33:479–516.
9- O’Toole LJ, Meier KJ. Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks. Public Administration Review, 2004; 64: 681–93.
10- Ghouchani Khorasani, MM, osseinpour D. Network overnance in Cyber Security Research Institutions. Journal of Management and Development Process, 2017; 30(1): 51-80. ]In Persian [
11- Agranoff R. Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public management. Public Administration Review, 2006; 66: 56-65.
12- Turrini Alex, Daniela Cristofoli, Francesca Frosini, & Greta Nasi. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 2010; 88: 528–550.
13- Willem A, Gemmel P. Do governance choices matter in health care networks? An exploratory configuration study of health care. Networks, 2013; 13: 229.
14- KCE reports C.Comparative study of hospital accreditation programs in Europe. Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg Centre rganiz d’expertise des soins de santé.Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2007.
15- Ulibarri N. & Tyler A. Linking Network Structure to Collaborative Governance, Journal of Public Administration Research And Theory; 2016: 1–19.
16- Provan KG, Milward, HB. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995; 40(1): 1–33.
17- Gibson J. Transforming governance to enhance social and educational innovation; 2016.
18- Barbazza E & Tello J. A review of health governance: Definitions, dimensions and tools to govern, Health Policy; 2014: 1–11.
19- Sørensen Eva, & Torfing J. Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic Through Metagovernance. Public Administration, 2009; 87(2).
20- Barczak B. Organizational Network Management System. In: Bilgin M., Danis H., Demir E., Can U. (eds) Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, 5. Springer, Cham, 2017.
21- Goldsmith S, Eggers, W.D. Governing by Network, Washington, DC: Brookings. 2004.
22- Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications; 1998.
23- Khastar H. Provide a method for calculating the reliability of the coding stage of research interviews. Methodology of social sciences and Humanities Journal, 2009; 15(58): 161-174.
24- National Document for the Development of the Health Sector in the Fourth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan of the Country, Ministry of Health, Treatment and Medical Education, Deputy Coordinator and Secretary of Assemblies; 2004 http://shaghool.ir/downloadarea.php?id=2705
25- Nasrollahpour Shirvani S.D. A review of health systems performance assessment models, Clinical Excellence, 2017; 5(2): 98-116.
26- Marafiotia E, Marianib L, Martinia M. Exploring the Effect of Network Governance Models on Health-Care Systems Performance, International Journal of Public Administration, 2013; 37(13): 987-998.
27- Agranoff R. Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public management. Public Administration Review, 2006; 66: 56-65.
_||_1- WHO. Health in All policices (HIAP); Framework for Country Action; 2014.
2- Sørensen E & Torfing J. Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic through Met governance. Public Administration, 2013; 87(2).
3- Brinkerhoff DW, Bossert TJ. Governance: Concepts, Experience and Program Options. Bethesda, MD: Health Systems 20/20 Project; 2008.
4- Greer S.L, Wismar M, Figueras J. Introduction: strengthening governance amidst changing governance. In: Strengthening Health System Governance: better policies, stronger performance’. WHO: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2015.
5- Ellis JC. A history of film (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1990.
6- Minassians, HP. Network governance and performance measures: Challenges in collaborative design of hybridized environments, International Review of Public Administration, 2015; 20(4): 335-352, DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2015.1088689.
7- Turrini Alex, Daniela Cristofoli, Francesca Frosini, Greta N. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 2010; 88: 528–550.
8- Provan Keith, Amy Fish G, and Sydow J. Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management .2007; 33:479–516.
9- O’Toole LJ, Meier KJ. Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks. Public Administration Review, 2004; 64: 681–93.
10- Ghouchani Khorasani, MM, osseinpour D. Network overnance in Cyber Security Research Institutions. Journal of Management and Development Process, 2017; 30(1): 51-80. ]In Persian [
11- Agranoff R. Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public management. Public Administration Review, 2006; 66: 56-65.
12- Turrini Alex, Daniela Cristofoli, Francesca Frosini, & Greta Nasi. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 2010; 88: 528–550.
13- Willem A, Gemmel P. Do governance choices matter in health care networks? An exploratory configuration study of health care. Networks, 2013; 13: 229.
14- KCE reports C.Comparative study of hospital accreditation programs in Europe. Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg Centre rganiz d’expertise des soins de santé.Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2007.
15- Ulibarri N. & Tyler A. Linking Network Structure to Collaborative Governance, Journal of Public Administration Research And Theory; 2016: 1–19.
16- Provan KG, Milward, HB. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995; 40(1): 1–33.
17- Gibson J. Transforming governance to enhance social and educational innovation; 2016.
18- Barbazza E & Tello J. A review of health governance: Definitions, dimensions and tools to govern, Health Policy; 2014: 1–11.
19- Sørensen Eva, & Torfing J. Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic Through Metagovernance. Public Administration, 2009; 87(2).
20- Barczak B. Organizational Network Management System. In: Bilgin M., Danis H., Demir E., Can U. (eds) Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, 5. Springer, Cham, 2017.
21- Goldsmith S, Eggers, W.D. Governing by Network, Washington, DC: Brookings. 2004.
22- Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications; 1998.
23- Khastar H. Provide a method for calculating the reliability of the coding stage of research interviews. Methodology of social sciences and Humanities Journal, 2009; 15(58): 161-174.
24- National Document for the Development of the Health Sector in the Fourth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan of the Country, Ministry of Health, Treatment and Medical Education, Deputy Coordinator and Secretary of Assemblies; 2004 http://shaghool.ir/downloadarea.php?id=2705
25- Nasrollahpour Shirvani S.D. A review of health systems performance assessment models, Clinical Excellence, 2017; 5(2): 98-116.
26- Marafiotia E, Marianib L, Martinia M. Exploring the Effect of Network Governance Models on Health-Care Systems Performance, International Journal of Public Administration, 2013; 37(13): 987-998.
27- Agranoff R. Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public management. Public Administration Review, 2006; 66: 56-65.