IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/114996.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rethinking healthcare quality and prestige: is this a manager's number one problem?

Author

Listed:
  • Morales-Burton, Veronica
  • Lopez-Ramirez, Sofía A.

Abstract

Healthcare institutions are organizations driven to provide medical assistance at a certain level of quality service and safety. To achieve the recognition of excellence, these entities can undergo accreditations and comparisons with other institutions of their kind through ranking systems in order to validate patient, organizational, and academic institutional standards. Usually, the goal is to obtain prestige and recognition as well as positive feedback toward the institution, motivating improvement. In this scenario, the manager's role is to communicate these results and propose strategies to maintain or increase healthcare quality. The following article discusses the fundamentals of the processes of accreditation and ranking systems, the importance of health managers on the complexity of these processes and on achieving an institution's goals and vision, but also intends to provide a critical view toward the desire for prestige a hospital envisions within the feedback when its biggest aim should be directed to improve in benefit of the patients and workforce conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Morales-Burton, Veronica & Lopez-Ramirez, Sofía A., 2022. "Rethinking healthcare quality and prestige: is this a manager's number one problem?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114996, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:114996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/114996/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Gill & Zdenka Kissová & Jaesun Lee & Victoria Prowse, 2019. "First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 494-507, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tim Klausmann, 2021. "Feedback in Homogeneous Ability Groups: A Field Experiment," Working Papers 2114, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    2. Vanessa, Mertins & Jeworrek, Sabrina & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2018. ""The Good News about Bad News": Feedback about Past Organisational Failure Bad ist Impact in Worker Productivity," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181644, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Dohmen, Thomas & Non, Arjan & Stolp, Tom, 2021. "Reference points and the tradeoff between risk and incentives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 813-831.
    5. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    6. Anna Ulrichshofer & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Social Comparison and Optimal Contracts in the Competition for Managerial Talent," Working Papers 2020-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Legge, Stefan & Schmid, Lukas, 2016. "Media attention and betting markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 304-333.
    8. Rigissa Megalokonomou & Yi Zhang, 2022. "How Good Am I? Effects and Mechanisms behind Salient Ranks," CESifo Working Paper Series 9991, CESifo.
    9. Shinya Kajitani & Keiichi Morimoto & Shiba Suzuki, 2020. "Information feedback in relative grading: Evidence from a field experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Czibor, Eszter & Claussen, Jörg & van Praag, Mirjam, 2019. "Women in a men’s world: Risk taking in an online card game community," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 62-89.
    11. Hermes, Henning & Huschens, Martin & Rothlauf, Franz & Schunk, Daniel, 2021. "Motivating low-achievers—Relative performance feedback in primary schools," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 45-59.
    12. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Delegated Decision Making and Social Competition in the Finance Industry," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2018_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    13. Astier, Nicolas, 2018. "Comparative feedbacks under incomplete information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 90-108.
    14. Bhanot, Syon P., 2017. "Rank and response: A field experiment on peer information and water use behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 155-172.
    15. Garcia, Stephen M. & Arora, Poonam & Reese, Zachary A. & Shain, Michael J., 2020. "Free agency and organizational rankings: A social comparison perspective on signaling theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Goller, Daniel & Diem, Andrea & Wolter, Stefan C., 2023. "Sitting next to a dropout: Academic success of students with more educated peers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    17. Azmat, Ghazala & Iriberri, Nagore & Bagues, Manuel, 2016. "What you don't know... Can't hurt you? A field experiment on relative performance feedback in higher education," CEPR Discussion Papers 11201, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Cédric Gutierrez & Tomasz Obloj & Douglas H. Frank, 2021. "Better to have led and lost than never to have led at all? Lost leadership and effort provision in dynamic tournaments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 774-801, April.
    19. Isaac Mbiti & Danila Serra, 2022. "Health workers’ behavior, patient reporting and reputational concerns: lab-in-the-field experimental evidence from Kenya," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 514-556, April.
    20. Dirk-Jan Janssen & Sascha Füllbrunn & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Individual speculative behavior and overpricing in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 653-675, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    accreditation (institutions); health care economics and organizations; health services administration; healthcare quality assessment; organization and administration;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:114996. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.