| Literature DB >> 35757646 |
Gang Yin1, Jie Ning2,3,4, Yarui Peng2,3,4, Jingkai Yue5, Hongbing Tao1.
Abstract
Background: The efficient operation of county-level medical institutions is a significant guarantee in constructing Chinese rural tertiary care service networks. However, it is still unclear how to increase the efficiency of county hospitals under the interaction of multiple factors. In this study, 35 county general hospitals in China were selected to explore the configuration paths of county hospitals' high and poor efficiency status under the Environment-Structure-Behavior (ESB) framework and provide evidence-based recommendations for measures to enhance its efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: QCA; configurational paths; county hospital; hospital efficiency; qualitative comparative analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35757646 PMCID: PMC9226547 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.918571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Environment-structure-behavior analytical framework.
Variables definition.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Inputs | NoD | Number of doctors |
| NoN | Number of nurses | |
| NoB | Number of actual open beds | |
| NoME | Number of medical equipment (Purchase price ≥ 1 million RMB) | |
| Outputs | NoOEV | Number of outpatient and emergency visits |
| NoSOI | Number of surgical operations for inpatient | |
| CMI | Case-mix index | |
| NoDP | Number of discharged patients adjusted by CMI | |
| Antecedents | CCG | County per capita GDP (10 thousand RMB) |
| AFA | Annual financial appropriation (1 thousand RMB) | |
| NoB | Number of actual open beds | |
| NDR | Nurse doctor ratio | |
| CMI | Case-mix index | |
| BUR | Bed utilization ratio |
Descriptive statistics of variables.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NoD | 234 | 105 | 71 | 569 |
| NoN | 413 | 163 | 158 | 913 |
| NoB | 851 | 295 | 400 | 2,000 |
| NoME | 23 | 14 | 2 | 86 |
| NoOEV | 389,214 | 223,388 | 124,296 | 1,178,782 |
| NoSOI | 12,141 | 9,649 | 1,514 | 52,256 |
| CMI | 0.87 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 1.08 |
| NoDP | 33,023 | 14,796 | 12,347 | 89,180 |
| CCG | 5.26 | 3.21 | 2.15 | 17.68 |
| AFA | 23,677 | 25,164 | 1,810 | 112,431 |
| NDR | 1.84 | 0.30 | 0.98 | 2.66 |
| BUR | 100.71 | 11.73 | 81.66 | 134.53 |
Figure 2Technical efficiency score distribution radar chart.
Three qualitative anchors of each variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| BES | 0.936 | 0.920 | 0.872 |
| CCG | 6.532 | 4.300 | 3.040 |
| AFA | 30,114 | 14,567 | 7,829 |
| NoB | 1,000 | 800 | 692 |
| NDR | 2.012 | 1.848 | 1.664 |
| CMI | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.80 |
| BUR | 105.188 | 98.387 | 93.774 |
Analysis of necessary conditions.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CCG | 0.4515 | 0.5117 | 0.5659 | 0.5495 |
| ~CCG | 0.6026 | 0.6183 | 0.4972 | 0.4371 |
| AFA | 0.4806 | 0.5279 | 0.5939 | 0.5589 |
| ~AFA | 0.5984 | 0.6323 | 0.4983 | 0.4511 |
| NoB | 0.5009 | 0.5403 | 0.5426 | 0.5014 |
| ~NoB | 0.5377 | 0.5784 | 0.5026 | 0.4631 |
| NDR | 0.5761 | 0.6313 | 0.4768 | 0.4477 |
| ~NDR | 0.4960 | 0.5253 | 0.6073 | 0.5510 |
| CMI | 0.6446 | 0.6829 | 0.4111 | 0.3732 |
| ~CMI | 0.4084 | 0.4473 | 0.6507 | 0.6107 |
| BUR | 0.5411 | 0.5975 | 0.5052 | 0.4780 |
| ~BUR | 0.5272 | 0.5543 | 0.5746 | 0.5175 |
Configuration of conditions for high efficiency.
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CCG | ⚫ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ||
| AFA | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | • |
| NoB | ⊗ | ⊗ | • | • | ⊗ |
| NDR | • | • | ⊗ | • | ⊗ |
| CMI | ⊗ | ⊗ | • | • | ⊗ |
| BUR | ⊗ | • | • | ||
| Consistency | 0.9211 | 0.8943 | 0.9414 | 0.9310 | 0.9131 |
| Raw Coverage | 0.1485 | 0.1257 | 0.1703 | 0.1438 | 0.0558 |
| Unique Coverage | 0.0414 | 0.0159 | 0.1083 | 0.0700 | 0.0287 |
| Overall Solution Consistency | 0.9219 | ||||
| Overall Solution Coverage | 0.4203 | ||||
Full black circles and crossed-out circles indicate the presence and the absence of causal conditions, respectively. Large circles (⚫ and ⊗) indicate the core conditions, small circles (• and ⊗) indicate the peripheral conditions and the blank cells represent conditions that do not matter for the solution.
Configuration of conditions for poor efficiency.
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CCG | ⊗ | ⚫ | ⊗ | ⚫ | |
| AFA | ⊗ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⊗ | ⚫ |
| NoB | ⊗ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⊗ |
| NDR | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | • | |
| CMI | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ |
| BUR | ⊗ | ⊗ | • | • | |
| Consistency | 0.8592 | 0.7840 | 0.8969 | 0.8032 | 0.9203 |
| Raw Coverage | 0.1096 | 0.1146 | 0.1239 | 0.1238 | 0.0786 |
| Unique Coverage | 0.0749 | 0.0676 | 0.0762 | 0.0675 | 0.0433 |
| Overall Solution Consistency | 0.8463 | ||||
| Overall Solution Coverage | 0.4125 | ||||
The meaning of the symbols in this table has the same meaning as in .
Results of robustness test.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CCG | • | ⊗ | ⊗ | |||
| AFA | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⚫ | |
| NoB | • | • | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⚫ | ⊗ |
| NDR | • | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⊗ | ⊗ | |
| CMI | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⚫ | ⊗ |
| BUR | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⊗ | ⚫ | ||
| Consistency | 0.8401 | 0.8543 | 0.9211 | 0.8943 | 0.9414 | 0.9131 |
| Raw Coverage | 0.2648 | 0.2091 | 0.1485 | 0.1257 | 0.1703 | 0.0558 |
| Unique Coverage | 0.0456 | 0.0637 | 0.0414 | 0.0159 | 0.0414 | 0.0271 |
| Overall Solution Consistency | 0.8450 | |||||
| Overall Solution Coverage | 0.5296 | |||||
The meaning of the symbols in this table have the same meaning as in .