The institutional shaping of management: in the tracks of English individualism

Globalisation raises important questions about the shaping of economic action by cultural factors. This article explores the formation of what is seen by some as a prime influence on the formation of British management: individualism. Drawing on a range of historical sources, it argues for a comparative approach. In this case, the primary comparison drawn is between England and Scotland. The contention is that there is a systemic approach to authority in Scotland that can be contrasted to a personal approach in England. An examination of the careers of a number of Scottish pioneers of management suggests the roots of this systemic approach in practices of church governance. Ultimately this systemic approach was to take a secondary role to the personal approach engendered by institutions like the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but it found more success in the different institutional context of the USA. The complexities of dealing with historical evidence are stressed, as is the value of taking a comparative approach. In this case this indicates a need to take religious practice as seriously as religious belief as a source of transferable practice. The article suggests that management should not be seen as a simple response to economic imperatives, but as shaped by the social and cultural context from which it emerges

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand

Importance: Randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer have reported noninferior outcomes for hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) compared with conventional RT (CRT); however, uptake of HRT across jurisdictions is variable. Objective: To evaluate the use of HRT vs CRT in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a population level. Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-based cohort study from the Australian and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Participants were men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with primary RT (excluding brachytherapy) from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were analyzed in March 2021. Exposures: HRT defined as 2.5 to 3.3 Gy and CRT defined as 1.7 to 2.3 Gy per fraction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Temporal trends and institutional, clinicopathological, and sociodemographic factors associated with use of HRT were analyzed. PROs were assessed 12 months following RT using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Short Form questionnaire. Differences in PROs were analyzed by adjusting for age and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk category. Results: Of 8305 men identified as receiving primary RT, 6368 met the inclusion criteria for CRT (n = 4482) and HRT (n = 1886). The median age was 73.1 years (IQR, 68.2-77.3 years), 2.6% (168) had low risk, 45.7% (2911) had intermediate risk, 44.5% (2836) had high-/very high-risk, and 7.1% (453) had regional nodal disease. Use of HRT increased from 2.1% (9 of 435) in the first half of 2016 to 52.7% (539 of 1023) in the second half of 2019, with lower uptake in the high-/very high-risk (1.9% [4 of 215] to 42.4% [181 of 427]) compared with the intermediate-risk group (2.2% [4 of 185] to 67.6% [325 of 481]) (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45). Substantial variability in the use of HRT for intermediate-risk disease remained at the institutional level (median 53.3%; range, 0%-100%) and clinician level (median 57.9%; range, 0%-100%) in the last 2 years of the study period. There were no clinically significant differences across EPIC-26 urinary and bowel functional domains or bother scores. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, use of HRT for prostate cancer increased substantially from 2016. This population-level data demonstrated clinically equivalent PROs and supports the continued implementation of HRT into routine practice. The wide variation in practice observed at the jurisdictional, institutional, and clinician level provides stakeholders with information that may be useful in targeting implementation strategies and benchmarking services.</p

Development of Indicators to Assess Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer.

The development, monitoring, and reporting of indicator measures that describe standard of care provide the gold standard for assessing quality of care and patient outcomes. Although indicator measures have been reported, little evidence of their use in measuring and benchmarking performance is available. A standard set, defining numerator, denominator, and risk adjustments, will enable global benchmarking of quality of care. To develop a set of indicators to enable assessment and reporting of quality of care for men with localised prostate cancer (PCa). Candidate indicators were identified from the literature. An international panel was invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. Teleconferences were held before and after each voting round to provide instruction and to review results. Panellists were asked to rate each proposed indicator on a Likert scale of 1-9 in a two-round iterative process. Calculations required to report on the endorsed indicators were evaluated and modified to reflect the data capture of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ). A total of 97 candidate indicators were identified, of which 12 were endorsed. The set includes indicators covering pre-, intra-, and post-treatment of PCa care, within the limits of the data captured by PCOR-ANZ. The 12 endorsed quality measures enable international benchmarking on the quality of care of men with localised PCa. Reporting on these indicators enhances safety and efficacy of treatment, reduces variation in care, and can improve patient outcomes. PCa has the highest incidence of all cancers in men. Early diagnosis and relatively high survival rates mean issues of quality of care and best possible health outcomes for patients are important. This paper identifies 12 important measurable quality indicators in PCa care

Development of Indicators to Assess Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer

Background:The development, monitoring, and reporting of indicator measures that describe standard of care provide the gold standard for assessing quality of care and patient outcomes. Although indicator measures have been reported, little evidence of their use in measuring and benchmarking performance is available. A standard set, defining numerator, denominator, and risk adjustments, will enable global benchmarking of quality of care.Objective:To develop a set of indicators to enable assessment and reporting of quality of care for men with localised prostate cancer (PCa).Design, setting, and participants:Candidate indicators were identified from the literature. An international panel was invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. Teleconferences were held before and after each voting round to provide instruction and to review results.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:Panellists were asked to rate each proposed indicator on a Likert scale of 1–9 in a two-round iterative process. Calculations required to report on the endorsed indicators were evaluated and modified to reflect the data capture of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ).Results and limitations:A total of 97 candidate indicators were identified, of which 12 were endorsed. The set includes indicators covering pre-, intra-, and post-treatment of PCa care, within the limits of the data captured by PCOR-ANZ.Conclusions:The 12 endorsed quality measures enable international benchmarking on the quality of care of men with localised PCa. Reporting on these indicators enhances safety and efficacy of treatment, reduces variation in care, and can improve patient outcomes.Patient summary:PCa has the highest incidence of all cancers in men. Early diagnosis and relatively high survival rates mean issues of quality of care and best possible health outcomes for patients are important. This paper identifies 12 important measurable quality indicators in PCa care