Coyne and Messina Articles Analysis - Term Paper Example

? Articles Analysis Number: Question The aspect of differences that exist in the works of Coyne andhis group (2009), as well as Messina and his peers (2009), is premised on the fact that they both carry out different research studies, though these studies seek to identify, address and discuss matters that underpin the issuance of healthcare services and the operation of the healthcare sector. Conversely, the aspect of similarity that espouse the work of Coyne and group to that of Messina and group is rooted in both parties confining their research activities to the healthcare sector, since both parties are interested in enabling relevant improvements in the same sector. The studies conducted by Coyne’s and Messina’s groups are similar, since they are fundamentally interested in bettering the status and quality of the healthcare industry and the services it accords. To this effect, both groups choose dependent and independent variables and then research and analyze how these variables can be harnessed in order to improve the status of the American healthcare industry and services. Specifically, on one hand, Coyne and his group consider the relevance of causative variables like the type of hospital ownership and hospital size in furthering the cause of efficiency within the framework of healthcare services provision. On the other hand, Messina and his group research and scrutinize the nexus between patient satisfaction in teaching and nonteaching healthcare organizations, which practice inpatient admission. There is no gainsaying that patient satisfaction and efficiency are principle yardsticks of determining industrial success. Both Coyne and Messina carry out an extensive reviewing of already existing literature materials, in order to explain and analyze the relationship between the (independent and dependent) variables and the research findings. The same literature materials authenticate and generate recommendations that will be later on proposed. Coyne et al. (2009) and Messina et al. (2009) incorporate identical design elements in their research activities. Apart from the fact that both works are quantitative, the same also use sampling, as a way of narrowing the demographic components that are to be analyzed. For example, Coyne and the group discard private-owned hospitals and hospitals outside the state of Washington. For Messina and his group, seven teaching and nonteaching hospitals that were renowned between 1999 and 2003 suffice. However, even as a myriad of similarities between Coyne and Messina’s works abounds, differences between the two research works also exist. At one end, Messina and his proteges are intent on confirming and divulging on the relationship between inpatient admission in teaching and nonteaching hospitals, and patient satisfaction. At the other end, Coyne and his group are interested in shedding light on how the type of hospital ownership and hospital size relate with cost and efficiency. Two fundamental problems guide the work that Messina and his group carry out. These problems are the relationships that exist between patient satisfaction and inpatient admission in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. This is unlike the work that Joseph Coyne and his groups carry out. Particularly, Joseph Coyne and his group’s research undertaking investigates a single research question- the relationship between cost and efficiency and hospital size and the type of hospital ownership. In respect to the foregoing, there is lucidity in saying that while Coyne and his proteges’ research study is a two-way study of variance that of Messina and his proteges is a multivariate design. The variables in the two analyses are also different. The independent variables for Coyne and his group include the structure of hospital ownership and hospital size, while teaching and nonteaching healthcare institutions serve as independent variables for Messina’s group. For dependent variables, Coyne and his group choose efficiency and cost, while Messina and his group choose inpatient admission and patient satisfaction. It is also worth noting that despite the identical nature of the research designs (sample size and quantitative research) that Messina, Coyne and their groups use, the two researches also use different research samples. Coyne and his group take 96 public hospitals in Washington for their sample, while Messina and his groups opt for seven nonteaching and seven teaching hospitals that were strong in the timeframe spanning from 1999 to 2003. Question 2: Completing the Coyne and Messina Articles Analysis Research Question: Coyne: whether or not hospital size and ownership type make a difference in the efficiency and cost results of hospitals in Washington state Messina: whether or not a relationship between inpatient admissions and patient satisfaction, in nonteaching and teaching hospitals exists. The manner in which research questions proceed from the literature review in the article Coyne: the study emanates from Coyne and group’s previous studies on the relationship between independent hospitals and multi-facility systems. This group also refers to investigations that considered different variables to ascertain disparities in hospital performance. The studies confirmed the reality of economies of scale, though the relevance of hospital size was found to have been inconclusive. Messina: the research undertaking depends on previous researches that attempted to establish causal relations extant among patient satisfaction and teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Conversely, literature that discussed non-significant or negative correlations between the aforementioned variables are also analytically considered as foundational. IV Type: Coyne: the size of the hospital; and the structure or type of hospital proprietorship The nature of independent variable is categorical Messina: admission of inpatients in teaching hospitals; and admission of inpatients in nonteaching hospitals The independent variable (IV) that the group uses is categorical in nature. DV Type: Coyne: The dependent variables (DV) are cost and efficiency measures. Both variables are continuous in nature. Messina: The DV is patient satisfaction. The DV used is categorical in nature. Design Elements 1. Qualitative versus Quantitative 2. Size of the sample 3. Sampling method 4. Control group versus experimental 5. validity and reliability of data instruments Coyne: The design element is quantitative in nature 96 Coyne and his group designated 96 hospitals in Washington; all of them public-owned. No Information used helps in measuring hospital performance and efficiency with the highest extent of accuracy possible (reliability), and enjoys ubiquitous popularity among hospital users. Messina: The design element is also quantitative in nature Seven nonteaching and seven teaching hospitals that were vibrant in the periods between 1999 and 2003 have been chosen as the sample. The research design is not experimental. The information that this group uses had been initially being used to gauge the extent of satisfaction among patients (validity), and had been previously used to rate operations between nonteaching and teaching hospitals, in respect to efficiency (accuracy). Describing the analysis and statistics that have been used Coyne: The analysis takes the form of ANOVA (Two-way Analysis of Variance). Messina: The analysis is multivariate in design. Whether the conclusions are cogent; and are coherent with the review of literature; and Whether the conclusions consider the control of extraneous variables Coyne: The group found that hospital size and the nature of hospital proprietorship affect efficiency. Nonprofit hospital organizations appeared to record higher levels of performance, while medium and nonprofit entities were more efficient. Medium-sized hospitals also recorded lower operational costs compared to their larger and smaller counterparts. The group can be seen to have respected the validity of extraneous variables, in their calling for information on payer mix, scope of services and case mix, as results emanating from national studies. The group concedes to the idea that these factors could have profoundly affected the results of this research study. Messina: The group asserts that patient satisfaction greatly affects performance teaching hospitals, even though it does not strongly correlate with the volume of growth. The import of this is that teaching hospitals should greatly consider additional patient volume; and the best way of respecting this additional patient volume is by studying emphasis on patient satisfaction. The group acknowledges the place of extraneous variables when in its findings; it states that the expectations of patients are critical and dynamic, since patient satisfaction is a culmination of the delicate balance between patient culture and clinical culture. References Coyne, J. S. (2009). Hospital cost and efficiency: Do hospital size and ownership type really matter? US National Library of Medicine & National Institute of Health, 54 (3), 163-74. Messina, D. J. (2009). The relationship between patient satisfaction and inpatient admissions across teaching and nonteaching hospitals. US National Library of Medicine & National Institute of Health, 54 (3), 177-89. Read More