From staff-mix to skill-mix and beyond: towards a systemic approach to health workforce management

Throughout the world, countries are experiencing shortages of health care workers. Policy-makers and system managers have developed a range of methods and initiatives to optimise the available workforce and achieve the right number and mix of personnel needed to provide high-quality care. Our literature review found that such initiatives often focus more on staff types than on staff members' skills and the effective use of those skills. Our review describes evidence about the benefits and pitfalls of current approaches to human resources optimisation in health care. We conclude that in order to use human resources most effectively, health care organisations must consider a more systemic approach - one that accounts for factors beyond narrowly defined human resources management practices and includes organisational and institutional conditions

An Evaluation of the Use of Smartphones to Communicate Between Clinicians: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND: Communication between clinicians is critical to providing quality patient care but is often hampered by limitations of current systems. Smartphones such as BlackBerrys may improve communication, but studies of these technologies have been limited to date. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to describe how smartphones were adopted for clinical communication within general internal medical wards and determine their impact on team effectiveness and communication. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study that gathered data from the frequency of smartphone calls and email messages, clinicians' interviews, and ethnographic observations of clinical communication interactions. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data was undertaken to develop common themes that encompass comprehensive and representative insights across different methods. RESULTS: Findings from our study indicated that over a 24-hour period, nurses sent on average 22.3 emails to the physicians mostly through the "team smartphone," the designated primary point of contact for a specific medical team. Physicians carrying the team smartphone received on average 21.9 emails and 6.4 telephone calls while sending out 6.9 emails and initiating 8.3 telephone calls over the 24-hour period. Our analyses identified both positive and negative outcomes associated with the use of smartphones for clinical communication. There was a perceived improvement in efficiency over the use of pagers for clinical communication for physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals. In particular, residents found that the use of smartphones helped to increase their mobility and multitasking abilities. Negative outcomes included frequent interruptions and discordance between what doctors and nurses considered urgent. Nurses perceived a worsening of the interprofessional relationships due to overreliance on messaging by text with a resulting decrease in verbal communication. Unprofessional behaviors were observed in the use of smartphones by residents. CONCLUSIONS: Routine adoption of smartphones by residents appeared to improve efficiency over the use of pagers for physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals. This was balanced by negative communication issues of increased interruptions, a gap in perceived urgency, weakened interprofessional relationships, and unprofessional behavior. Further communication interventions are required that balance efficiency and interruptions while maintaining or even improving interprofessional relationships and professionalism

Reasons for Outpatient Referrals from Generalists to Specialists

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative importance of medical and nonmedical factors influencing generalists’ decisions to refer, and of the factors that might avert unnecessary referrals. DESIGN: Prospective survey of all referrals from generalists to subspecialists over a 5-month period. SETTING: University hospital outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-seven staff physicians in general internal medicine, family medicine, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and rheumatology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each referral, the generalist rated a number of medical and nonmedical reasons for referral, as well as factors that may have helped avert the referral; the specialist seeing the patient then rated the appropriateness, timeliness, and complexity of the referral. Both physicians rated the potential avoidability of the referral by telephone consultation. Generalists were influenced by a combination of both medical and nonmedical reasons for 76% of the referrals, by only medical reasons in 20%, and by only nonmedical reasons in 3%. In 33% of all referrals, generalists felt that training in simple procedures or communication with a generalist or specialist colleague would have allowed them to avoid referral. Specialists felt that the vast majority of referrals were timely (as opposed to premature or delayed) and of average complexity. Although specialists rated most referrals as appropriate, 30% were rated as possibly appropriate or inappropriate. Generalists and specialists failed to agree on the avoidability of 34% of referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Generalists made most referrals for a combination of medical and nonmedical reasons, and many referrals were considered avoidable. Increasing procedural training for generalists and enhancing informal channels of communication between generalists and subspecialists might result in more appropriate referrals at lower cost