...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ: British medical journal >NON-NHS PROVIDERS - Private companies behave differently from NHS providers
【24h】

NON-NHS PROVIDERS - Private companies behave differently from NHS providers

机译:非NHS提供商 - 私人公司的行为与NHS提供商不同

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Appleby states that "if rates of [average?] growth... continue overthe next 20 years... non-NHS providers could account for one in five of all outpatient attendances." This is a surprising interpretation of the data, If the trend as shown continues, non-NHS providers would account for 20% of the total within five, not 20, years. Would this matter? It would be interesting to know the health and transactional costs to patients and to the NHS from a recent "unmitigated disaster": the Nottingham privatisation experiment. After the hospital's renowned dermatology unit was privatised, emergency, outpatient, and in patient services were fragmented and the whole service— togetherwith education, training, and research at the hospital—has collapsed, with considerable disruption and displacement of patients. "Destructive innovation" or just destruction?
机译:Appleby指出:“如果[平均增长率]增长率...在接下来的20年中持续下去……非NHS提供商可以占所有门诊就诊中的五分之一。” 这是对数据的令人惊讶的解释,如果所示的趋势继续下去,非NHS提供商将占五年内总数的20%,而不是20年。 这很重要吗? 从最近的“不受限制的灾难”中了解患者和NHS的健康和交易成本将很有趣:诺丁汉私有化实验。 在医院著名的皮肤病学部门被私有化后,紧急情况,门诊和患者的服务分散了,整个服务 - 在医院进行教育,培训和研究一起崩溃,患者的干扰和流离失所。 “破坏性创新”还是只是破坏?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号