Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Use of administrative personnel in hospitals: a three nation comparison.

Authors: C M, Koeck; A, Minnick; M J, Roberts; K, Moore; N, Scholz;

Use of administrative personnel in hospitals: a three nation comparison.

Abstract

Differences in the costs of health care systems among industrialized countries has been the focus of several studies. Labor costs, specifically the amount of resources used for administration, are considered to contribute to differences in overall health care costs. To determine differences in the use of labor resources, especially administrative and managerial, among American, Austrian and German hospitals, we use a convenience sample of one Austrian, one German and two United States (US) tertiary care centers. In our analysis we used payroll data of the four hospitals. First, we categorized job titles and created job categories. Subsequently, we calculated full time equivalents (FTEs) per job category and compared them across countries. Adjustments were made for differences in health systems. The main outcome measures were FTEs per patient day and per discharge in each job category. In the US hospitals > 19% of FTEs were in administrative categories as compared with 11 times the labor per patient day of the European institutions. Among administrative areas, the largest absolute FTE difference was in financial operations. US hospitals used > 5 FTEs of personnel per 10,000 patient days versus < 1.0 FTE in the European hospitals. Given the kinds of administrative work done in US hospitals compared to Austria and Germany, differences in the organization and financing of these countries' health care systems may account for an important part of the higher number of US personnel.

Keywords

Cross-Cultural Comparison, Cost Control, National Health Programs, United States, Personnel, Hospital, Hospital Administration, Austria, Germany, Workforce, Humans

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!