Gravitating global monopoles in extra dimensions and the brane world concept

Multidimensional configurations with Minkowski external space-time and a spherical global monopole in extra dimensions are discussed in the context of the brane world concept. The monopole is formed with a hedgehog-like set of scalar fields \phi^i with a symmetry-breaking potential V depending on the magnitude \phi^2 = \phi^i \phi^i. All possible kinds of globally regular configurations are singled out without specifying the shape of V(\phi). These variants are governed by the maximum value \phi_m of the scalar field, characterizing the energy scale of symmetry breaking. If \phi_m < \phi_cr (where \phi_cr is a critical value of \phi related to the multidimensional Planck scale), the monopole reaches infinite radii while in the ``strong field regime'', when \phi_m\geq \phi_cr, the monopole may end with a cylinder of finite radius or possess two regular centers. The warp factors of monopoles with both infinite and finite radii may either exponentially grow or tend to finite constant values far from the center. All such configurations are shown to be able to trap test scalar matter, in striking contrast to RS2 type 5D models. The monopole structures obtained analytically are also found numerically for the Mexican hat potential with an additional parameter acting as a cosmological constant.Comment: 21 pages, 6 figures, latex, gc styl

Is the Kaiser Permanente model superior in terms of clinical integration?: a comparative study of Kaiser Permanente, Northern California and the Danish healthcare system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Integration of medical care across clinicians and settings could enhance the quality of care for patients. To date, there is limited data on the levels of integration in practice. Our objective was to compare primary care clinicians' perceptions of clinical integration and three sub-aspects in two healthcare systems: Kaiser Permanente, Northern California (KPNC) and the Danish healthcare system (DHS). Further, we examined the associations between specific organizational factors and clinical integration within each system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Comparable questionnaires were sent to a random sample of primary care clinicians in KPNC (n = 1103) and general practitioners in DHS (n = 700). Data were analysed using multiple logistic regression models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>More clinicians in KPNC perceived to be part of a clinical integrated environment than did general practitioners in the DHS (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 2.28, 4.12). Further, more KPNC clinicians reported timeliness of information transfer (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.13), agreement on roles and responsibilities (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.47) and established coordination mechanisms in place to ensure effective handoffs (OR = 6.80, 95% CI: 4.60, 10.06). None of the considered organizational factors in the sub-country analysis explained a substantial proportion of the variation in clinical integration.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>More primary care clinicians in KPNC reported clinical integration than did general practitioners in the DHS. Focused measures of clinical integration are needed to develop the field of clinical integration and to create the scientific foundation to guide managers searching for evidence based approaches.</p

Evaluation of the implementation of an integrated primary care network for prevention and management of cardiometabolic risk in Montréal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The goal of this project is to evaluate the implementation of an integrated and interdisciplinary program for prevention and management of cardiometabolic risk (PCMR). The intervention is based on the Chronic Care Model. The study will evaluate the implementation of the PCMR in 6 of the 12 health and social services centres (CSSS) in Montréal, and the effects of the PCMR on patients and the practice of their primary care physicians up to 40 months following implementation, as well as the sustainability of the program. Objectives are: 1-to evaluate the effects of the PCMR and their persistence on patients registered in the program and the practice of their primary care physicians, by implementation site and degree of exposure to the program; 2-to assess the degree of implementation of PCMR in each CSSS territory and identify related contextual factors; 3-to establish the relationships between the effects observed, the degree of PCMR implementation and the related contextual factors; 4-to assess the impact of the PCMR on strengthening local services networks.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The evaluation will use a mixed design that includes two complementary research strategies. The first strategy is similar to a quasi-experimental "before-after" design, based on a quantitative approach; it will look at the program's effects and their variations among the six territories. The effects analysis will use data from a clinical database and from questionnaires completed by participating patients and physicians. Over 3000 patients will be recruited. The second strategy corresponds to a multiple case study approach, where each of the six CSSS constitutes a case. With this strategy, qualitative methods will set out the context of implementation using data from semi-structured interviews with program managers. The quantitative data will be analyzed using linear or multilevel models complemented with an interpretive approach to qualitative data analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Our study will identify contextual factors associated with the effectiveness, successful implementation and sustainability of such a program. The contextual information will enable us to extrapolate our results to other contexts with similar conditions.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326130">NCT01326130</a></p

Doctor-manager relationships in the United States and the United Kingdom

In many developed countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, the relationships between doctors and hospital managers are strained. The purposes of this article are to examine survey data from the United States and the United Kingdom on doctor-manager relationships and to identify the sources of strain common to both countries as well as those particular to each country's health system.The two countries exhibited many similarities. A very high proportion of respondents from both countries identified external factors-such as governmental budget cuts, pressure from third parties to increase physicians' workload, and the turbulence of the policy environment-as important barriers to improving doctor-manager relationships. Other common sources of strain were concerns over resource availability and the relative power of doctors and managers. Sources of relationship tension particular to each country were also found. Substantial divergence of opinion was expressed with respect to internal factors that affect doctor-manager relationships. Respondents from the United States were more negative than those from the United Kingdom in their ratings of teamwork and communication between doctors and managers, and they were also less likely to have confidence in the medical staff. Respondents from the United Kingdom were more likely to believe that hospital management is driven more by financial than clinical priorities.Managers can implement several strategies to improve doctor-manager relationships, including greater organizational transparency in decision making; more frequent communication between managers and doctors; and more physician involvement in decision making, especially with regard to important resource-related decisions, and in organizational governance.</p