Abstract

BackgroundThis paper contributes to research in health systems literature by examining the role of health boards in hospital governance. Health care ranks among the largest public sectors in OECD countries. Efficient governance of hospitals requires the responsible and effective use of funds, professional management and competent governing structures. In this study hospital governance practice in two health care systems – Czech Republic and New Zealand – is compared and contrasted. These countries were chosen as both, even though they are geographically distant, have a universal right to 'free' health care provided by the state and each has experienced periods of political change and ensuing economic restructuring. Ongoing change has provided the impetus for policy reform in their public hospital governance systems.MethodsTwo comparative case studies are presented. They define key similarities and differences between the two countries' health care systems. Each public hospital governance system is critically analysed and discussed in light of D W Taylor's nine principles of 'good governance'.ResultsWhile some similarities were found to exist, the key difference between the two countries is that while many forms of 'ad hoc' hospital governance exist in Czech hospitals, public hospitals in New Zealand are governed in a 'collegiate' way by elected District Health Boards. These findings are discussed in relation to each of the suggested nine principles utilized by Taylor.ConclusionThis comparative case analysis demonstrates that although the New Zealand and Czech Republic health systems appear to show a large degree of convergence, their approaches to public hospital governance differ on several counts. Some of the principles of 'good governance' existed in the Czech hospitals and many were practiced in New Zealand. It would appear that the governance styles have evolved from particular historical circumstances to meet each country's specific requirements. Whether or not current practice could be improved by paying closer attention to theoretical models of 'good governance' is debatable.

Highlights

  • This paper contributes to research in health systems literature by examining the role of health boards in hospital governance

  • The governance process is orchestrated by boards – a group of people who are ideally charged with responsibility and accountability for the overall performance of the organisation

  • A comparative case study methodology [13] was used to gain information to empirically investigate whether or not D W Taylor's [2] principles of good governance were applied in the New Zealand and Czech Republic health care contexts

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper contributes to research in health systems literature by examining the role of health boards in hospital governance. In this study hospital governance practice in two health care systems – Czech Republic and New Zealand – is compared and contrasted. These countries were chosen as both, even though they are geographically distant, have a universal right to 'free' health care provided by the state and each has experienced periods of political change and ensuing economic restructuring. Given the importance of the governance function in managing hospitals, here it is suggested that it may be timely for policy makers and citizens alike of countries experiencing health sector change such as New Zealand and the Czech Republic, to first consider to what extent their current models of hospital governance meet the specified 'good governance' criteria, and second to address the implications of 'good governance' for their respective country's health care environments

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call