Hierarchical
decomposition does not work
for
complex adaptive systems
One
of the main difference has declared between an old or traditional healthcare system and complex adaptive one is how communication network look like? Previously; that leaded to subsequently to what
has built certain sort of gaps between them, whether from work behavior or way of thinking. Although the sort of network involved in most
traditional healthcare systems used Hierarchy pattern
of delivery services neglecting one of the real purposes of
healthcare delivery channel values by which simplify actions of delivered steps complemented with the whole picture of healthcare
value measured and to maximize the patient final outcomes related to paid cost. By the contrast; there are many
other differences between both being delivery system and the hierarchy
working pattern, is one of the which open wide door to many other
disadvantages with management frames and length of service capacity therefore, a lot of working errors with inferior outcomes and modest distribution government, insurance paid
finances and resources,
While
in the complex adaptive healthcare systems owns the hierarchy
network delivery channels with more working independence and autonomy with feasible agility threshold, not only the efficiency that to clarify the patient commitment in unique working methodology but at least not as in
traditional systems depending on contractual mode
act.
Reforming
the traditional working healthcare system has not long term uphold process
along many decades whereas, the persistence willingness to do constructive changes is
considered the first line of defense because there are a lot of
beneficial organizations get ongoing benefits financially. Actually. we can add also the bureaucratic sort of governments and their way of
thinking which reflect strongly on operational process and execution. That
actually give us the meaningful point, why some countries have attained
big steps forwardly while many other ones still thinking how
to design or even how to implement.
It worth be mentioned; that was the main target in the early 1990s to develop new modern and
find new innovative healthcare system provide good services and put scaffold to maximize the real value matching with paid costs by citizens, at the end of 2008 Estonian
healthcare system became the real example express the strong will and challenge to break the routine and different government bureaucracy
resistance mechanisms. Moreover; that proved the persistence of government in order to
change the traditional medical systems and put Estonian healthcare
system among those who achieved top healthcare welfare in very short time as Sweden and Norway.
Undoubtedly; I agree that traditional healthcare frame work does not work with adaptive complex model. Particularly ahead with appearance of Tele-medicine and M-medicine applications which do uncovering to real working gaps hinder the final patient awaited outcome.
One
of the main difference has declared between an old or traditional healthcare system and complex adaptive one is how communication network look like? Previously; that leaded to subsequently to what
has built certain sort of gaps between them, whether from work behavior or way of thinking. Although the sort of network involved in most
traditional healthcare systems used Hierarchy pattern
of delivery services neglecting one of the real purposes of
healthcare delivery channel values by which simplify actions of delivered steps complemented with the whole picture of healthcare
value measured and to maximize the patient final outcomes related to paid cost. By the contrast; there are many
other differences between both being delivery system and the hierarchy
working pattern, is one of the which open wide door to many other
disadvantages with management frames and length of service capacity therefore, a lot of working errors with inferior outcomes and modest distribution government, insurance paid
finances and resources,
While
in the complex adaptive healthcare systems owns the hierarchy
network delivery channels with more working independence and autonomy with feasible agility threshold, not only the efficiency that to clarify the patient commitment in unique working methodology but at least not as in
traditional systems depending on contractual mode
act.
Reforming
the traditional working healthcare system has not long term uphold process
along many decades whereas, the persistence willingness to do constructive changes is
considered the first line of defense because there are a lot of
beneficial organizations get ongoing benefits financially. Actually. we can add also the bureaucratic sort of governments and their way of
thinking which reflect strongly on operational process and execution. That
actually give us the meaningful point, why some countries have attained
big steps forwardly while many other ones still thinking how
to design or even how to implement.
It worth be mentioned; that was the main target in the early 1990s to develop new modern and
find new innovative healthcare system provide good services and put scaffold to maximize the real value matching with paid costs by citizens, at the end of 2008 Estonian
healthcare system became the real example express the strong will and challenge to break the routine and different government bureaucracy
resistance mechanisms. Moreover; that proved the persistence of government in order to
change the traditional medical systems and put Estonian healthcare
system among those who achieved top healthcare welfare in very short time as Sweden and Norway.
Undoubtedly; I agree that traditional healthcare frame work does not work with adaptive complex model. Particularly ahead with appearance of Tele-medicine and M-medicine applications which do uncovering to real working gaps hinder the final patient awaited outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment