Running head: COYNE AND MESSINA ARTICLES 1
COYNE AND MESSINA ARTICLES 5
Coyne and Messina Articles
Read also: "Academic Book Review: How to Complete It"
Coyne and Messina Articles
The article by Coyne et al. focuses on hospital cost and efficiency, studying if hospital sizes and ownership really do matter when it comes to the efficiency of cost results of hospitals in Washington DC. In addition, the study examines what factors may cause such differences. The papers research was restricted to not-for-profit hospitals and government owned hospitals in Washington. The second article, written by Messina et al., ventures into the field of patient satisfaction in the healthcare industry, considering a heightened level of competition between providers in the market. As such Messina et al. looks to create an understanding between patient satisfaction and admission volumes as an important factor in the modern day of high patient expectations and a declined compensation. As such, the current essay examines the major elements in the two reports by Coyne et al. and Messina et al. by means of comparing and contrasting.
Comparing and Contrasting of the Two Articles
According to the article by Messina et al., health care executives have been confronted by the harsh truth that they cannot just increase prices as a quick means of generating revenue, but rather they have to contain cost as well. Moreover, healthcare providers should consider such factors as price, high quality of service, strong reputations, and other nonmonetary attributes. Messina et al., in their research, found out that triumphant competition depends on the source having consciousness of individuals it desires to serve, the values it creates for customers, and how it will create that value operationally. Therefore, the research calls for a provider to be tactical relatively than deliberate and practical and no trash. With these, providers are called upon to shift their focus externally to consumers wants rather than the needs of a hospital.
On the contrary, Coyne et al. study analyzes the cost and efficiency of a hospital by size of not-for-profit and government owned hospitals. The research utilizes five efficiency indicators and five cost measures as the determinants of hospital performance, with the focus being whether size and ownership type does actually make a difference in the efficiency and cost results of a hospital. Therefore, the study utilizes accepted financial indicators derived from the healthcare financial management. The cost indicators utilized in the study were a frequent measure of hospital performance, focusing on such issues as isolated admissions, discharges, and patient days associated with acute care activity. Finally, the collected data is tested for differences marked by hospital size, differences in ownership, and the differences due to interactions on hospital size and ownership.
According to the study by Coyne et al., asset turnover indicates that the size of a hospital matters. However, the ownership type by itself does not play a significant role as the measure efficiency, since it is significantly lower in small hospitals than in the medium and larger hospitals under both ownership types. Patient residences numbers suggest that size and ownership of a hospital does matter as it shows a high level of implication between the interface of size and tenure. Considering the cost results from the research, data used indicate that size in hospital beds is important, however, the tenure of a hospital does not matter, and this directly translates to a higher cost measure in large hospitals than in smaller or medium hospitals. To be quite specific, two out of five indicators showed significant results including the current assets turnover and occupancy percentage, while the other three indicated significant results, including cost per adjusted patient pay, full-time equivalents per adjust patient day, and salary per full-time equivalents.
On the other hand, admission mean volumes of teaching hospitals in our sample was 27,745 in data compilation from span of five years, the mean held by non-teaching admissions volumes was 10,722 for the same duration of time. As such, the data revealed that teaching hospitals had a higher admission volume than non-teaching hospitals. The mean patient satisfaction score for the teaching hospital was 81.54, while the mean for non-teaching satisfaction score was 83.58, with individual Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients revealing a statistical significance and a positive correlation between patients satisfactions and admission volumes in teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, a contrast non-significant correlation was seen between patient satisfaction and admissions and volume of inpatient admissions in the non-teaching hospitals.
Collectively, Messinas study implies a rather important thou negative connection between patients level of satisfaction and the numbers flocking a hospital. Nevertheless, additional studies unveiled a mean score for patients satisfactory in both teaching and non-teaching hospitals. On the other hand, in the Coyne et al. study not only do size and ownership type independently make a difference in the reported level of efficiency, but also, the combination of the two factors do affect efficiency. On matters cost, Coyne et al. found that cost results show not only do size matter and the tenure type separately creates a variation, but a combination of the two will sometime affect cost levels. On the contrary, finding in the Messina et al. study reveals patient satisfaction to a factor behind teaching hospitals volume. From the research, we can conclude that size and ownership type does make a difference in efficiency and cost result in any given hospital. Nevertheless, patients come to hospitals with different expectations of service and care to be offered, therefore, the study calls for an early recognition of patients expectations towards influencing the levels patient volumes.