Nurse managers and medical directors play integral roles in ensuring the delivery of high-quality care. Nurse managers oversee day-to-day operations, coordinating staffing, patient care, and resource allocation. They are responsible for fostering a supportive environment for nursing staff while upholding standards of excellence in patient care. Medical directors bring their clinical expertise and leadership, guiding treatment protocols and ensuring adherence to best practices. Together, nurse managers and medical directors form a dynamic partnership in which collaboration is paramount. By synergizing their respective strengths, nurse managers and medical directors can optimize patient outcomes, streamline processes, and drive continuous improvement initiatives. Effective communication and mutual respect are foundational to this collaboration because they work hand-in-hand to navigate complex medical challenges and uphold standards of excellence. In this symbiotic relationship, the ultimate goal is to produce quality care that enhances patient well-being and satisfaction.

暂无摘要。

The life insurance industry is transitioning towards precision underwriting driven by increased data availability and access to advanced analytical tools. Effectively utilizing diverse data sources in life insurance underwriting presents an opportunity for medical directors to fully leverage their skillset in this evolving environment. By navigating these changes, balancing the value of data against its limitations, and fostering collaborative approaches to enhance risk assessment and underwriting processes, medical directors can maintain a pivotal role in the life insurance companies of tomorrow.

In Australia, there are only two publicly reported disciplinary cases against specialist medical administrators. In the most recent decision of Medical Board of Australia v Gruner, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirmed that specialist medical administrators owe patients and the public the same professional obligations as medical practitioners with direct patient contact. More controversially, the Tribunal also held that medical administrators have a professional obligation only to accept roles with clear position descriptions that afford them sufficient time and resources to ensure the safe delivery of health services. We argue that this imposes unrealistic expectations on medical administrators engaged by rural, regional, or private health services that already struggle to attract and retain specialist medical expertise. This may exacerbate existing health inequalities by disincentivising specialist medical administrators from seeking fractional appointments that assist under-funded areas of workforce shortage.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how Chief Medical Officers experience their role in the municipalities´ work with making the public health overview documents, demanded by the Norwegian Public Health Act from 2012.
METHODS: A qualitative study with semi-structured focus group interviews with 21 Chief Medical Officers from 20 different municipalities in Norway. The interviews were conducted in 2017. The data were analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: The Chief Medical Officers were mainly positive to participating in making public health overview documents. They took on roles as leaders of the work, medical advisors, data collectors towards local GPs and listening post to other sectors. Organizational factors like too small positions and a lack of tradition to involve the CMO in public health work were experienced as barriers to their involvement. The collaboration with the public health coordinators was said to be rewarding, and the intersectoral process involved employees from other sectors in a new way in public health. Although there were some positive experiences, several CMOs considered the use and impact of the public health overview document as limited.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a large variation in the amount and the type of involvement the Chief Medical Officers had in making the public health overview documents in Norwegian municipalities. More research is needed to understand if this has any consequences for the quality of public health work in the municipalities and whether it is a sign of a changing role of the Chief Medical Officers.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the recent changes to the urology residency application process on the criteria utilized by residency program directors (PDs) for interview invitations and their perspectives concerning these changes.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven urology residency PDs were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to explore interview selection criteria and the impact of the increase in preference signals (PS) per applicant.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight PDs (42.8%) completed the survey. The highest-ranked criteria were letters of recommendation (LoR) and successful sub-internship (sub-I) at the PD\'s institution, without statistically significant differences between these 2. Gender, ethnicity, and medical school prestige were the lowest rated criteria, without significant differences between these 3. Compared to before the increase in the number of PS per applicant, 80.7% of PDs reported that not receiving a PS from an applicant this cycle would more negatively impact the chances of offering an interview to that applicant. Moreover, 12.2% stated they would not interview any applicants who did not send a PS. Finally, 62.1% of PDs believed recent changes worsened the process.
CONCLUSIONS: Recent changes impacted PDs applicant evaluation, with the highest ranked criteria being LoRs and sub-I. Paradoxically, the increase in the number of PS per applicant has increased their importance as applicants are much less likely to receive interview offers from programs they have not signaled. Lastly, most PDs believe changes have worsened the evaluation process.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Institutional Graduate Medical Education (GME) Well-being Director (WBD) roles have recently emerged in the United States to support resident and fellow well-being. However, with a standard position description lacking, the current scope and responsibilities of such roles is unknown. This study describes the scope of work, salary support, and opportunities for role definition for those holding institutional leadership positions for GME well-being.
METHODS: In November 2021, 43 members of a national network of GME WBDs in the United States were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey that included questions about job responsibilities, percent effort, and dedicated budget, and a free text response question about unique leadership challenges for GME WBDs. The survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data.
RESULTS: 26 members (60%) responded. Most were physicians, and the majority identified as female and White. Median percent effort salary support was 40%. A small minority reported overseeing an allocated budget. Most respondents worked to improve access to mental health services, oversaw institution-wide well-being programs, designed or delivered well-being content, provided consultations to individual programs, met with trainees, and partnered with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. GME WBDs described unique challenges that had implications for perceived effectiveness related to resources, culture, institutional structure, and regulatory requirements in GME.
CONCLUSIONS: There was high concordance for several key responsibilities, which may represent a set of core priorities for this role. Other reported responsibilities may reflect institution-specific needs or opportunities for role definition. A wide scope of responsibilities, coupled with limited defined budgetary support described by many GME Well-being Directors, could limit effective role execution. Future efforts to better define the role, optimize organizational reporting structures and provide funding commensurate with the scope of work may allow the GME Well-being Director to more effectively develop and execute strategic interventions.