Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:19:18.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquiring Advanced Technology: Decision-making Strategies at Twelve Medical Centers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Saul N. Weingart
Saul N. Weingart
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study describes decision making regarding the acquisition of technology in 12 major medical centers. The financial impact of a project was the most widely cited criterion of decision, but financial considerations were less important than either the impact of a technology on the quality of clinical care or its contribution to teaching and research. Rarely were criteria set out explicitly or in advance. Although exemplary models exist, the technology assessment process at most institutions is described as “political,” “informal,” or “ad hoc.”

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 530 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Berkowitz, D. A.Strategic technology management. Healthcare Forum Journal, 1989, 32, 14–20.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
3.Manil, J., Willett, R., & Sawyer, W.Medical high-technology assessment and implementation in a community hospital: Nuclear magnetic resonance. Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology, 1991, 25, 289–96.Google Scholar
4.McGuire, P.Kaiser Permanente’s New Technologies Committee: An approach to assessing technology. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 240–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.McKinlay, J. B.From “promising report” to “standard procedure”: Seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milibank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society, 1981, 59, 374–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
7.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
8.Perry, S., Pillar, B., & Radany, M. H.The appropriate use of high-cost high-risk technologies: The case of total parenteral nutrition. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 214–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Steinberg, E. P., & Graziano, S.Integrating technology assessment and medical practice evaluations into hospital operations. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 218–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Veluchamy, S., & Saver, C. L.Clinical technology assessment, cost-effective adoption, and quality management by hospitals in the 1990s. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 223–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Wells, P. N. T., Garrett, J. A., & Jackson, P. C.Assessment criteria for diagnostic imaging technologies. Medical Progress Through Technology, 1991, 17, 93–101.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Whitted, G. S.Integrating technology and strategic planning in hospitals: A seven-stage process. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 1982, 27, 22–40.Google ScholarPubMed