Introduction
Modern trends in the field of healthcare are developing in such a way that medical offices are becoming more subordinate to the larger management bodies of clinics. This phenomenon can be either a one-time or a permanent future trend. What formations will be in the future in the medical sector will depend on this. This, in turn, can affect how doctors and nurses operate and how patients are cared for in clinics. It is necessary to study the motives of doctors who change the approach, what motives they have, and whether there is a compromise solution to reshaping.
A Trend or an Anomaly
The combination of medical offices into larger medical units means their subordination to the more prominent authorities of the clinics. This phenomenon may be an ongoing trend, as good reasons exist. These include, first of all, the financial pressure medical organizations face (Pauwels et al., 2021). This is due to rising costs, increasing regulatory complexity, and the need to reduce reimbursable costs.
Medical professionals may have a stronger negotiating position with insurance companies in the case of association in larger groups. Substantial evidence can also be considered that such a new approach can improve the coordination of teams. Improved interdisciplinary collaboration can enable the transition to technologies for better and more holistic care. Thus, transitioning to a new grouping system into large groups can become a permanent trend for medical teams.
Reasons for Approach
The reasons for consolidating doctors in the new format are pretty extensive and include a reduction in the administrative burden. An independent medical practice requires a lot of bureaucratic procedures that take up a lot of effort and resources. In such a case, joining a larger group can solve this problem, as it will take less time for collective legal decisions to be made (Pauwels et al., 2021).
Another reason is the strengthening of professional development and cooperation. This is more possible through joint efforts and learning from the experience of colleagues. Being part of a large organization of physicians facilitates access to support staff and collaborative research.
Trade-Offs
Despite the benefits of joining larger medical teams, this also means a loss of discretion. In this regard, some compromises may seem optimal for many specialists. One trade-off between loss or freedom or control is the adoption of treatment practices. Significant associations may adopt joint clinical protocols that set common standards (Provenzano et al., 2020). Giving more freedom to experiment in this regard could be a trade-off, as it would then be possible to achieve a certain level of freedom within the group.
Extended decision-making autonomy is another compromise that can be achieved through bilateral arrangements for a special status for the specialist. In such a case, the group will not be legally responsible for operations performed by a doctor who has received autonomy. Thus, expanded group membership will provide doctors with benefits in the form of shared research and grants, but they themselves will be responsible for the innovative treatments being done (Moynihan et al., 2020). This compromise will also allow medical staff to tailor individualized treatment plans for their patients, which can lead to more effective recovery. At the same time, the organizational culture and identity of the group can remain at a high level, which will help to unite the organization.
Conclusion
Grouping medical staff into larger groups can have a positive impact on team performance. In addition, the upside of this trend, which will continue, is that it will allow medical staff to improve their skills by cooperating with other participants. This will open up new opportunities in scientific development and more significant potential for medical innovation. Considering all the positive aspects that the association represents, this is an advantageous condition for cooperation.
References
Moynihan, R., Albarqouni, L., Nangla, C., Dunn, A. G., Lexchin, J., & Bero, L. (2020). Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study. bmj, 369. Web.
Pauwels, I., Versporten, A., Vermeulen, H., Vlieghe, E., & Goossens, H. (2021). Assessing the impact of the Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) on hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results of a worldwide survey. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 10(1), 1-12. Web.
Provenzano, D. A., Sitzman, B. T., Florentino, S. A., & Buterbaugh, G. A. (2020). Clinical and economic strategies in outpatient medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, 45(8), 579-585. Web.