The doctor organization is the institutional structure that represents, protects and supports the interests of doctors in their professional activities. This includes their professional status, licensing and professional liability. It is also a means of communication among medical doctors and the scientific community.
The main goal of the doctor organization is to promote health care services that are efficient and effective. These goals should include improving patient care outcomes, reducing costs, and maximizing value for patients. IPAs should organize their medical services around these objectives, and physician participants should use their unique skills to help the organization achieve its goals.
Cohesion, Scale and Affiliation
Many large integrated delivery systems and multispecialty medical groups were founded by physicians who envisioned the need to improve health care. They often aspired to create systems that could be highly effective, with a strong sense of mission and stewardship for the patients and populations they serve. These systems were often based on strong leadership and a shared organizational culture, both of which were essential to performance.
In addition, physicians often aspired to establish systems that were scalable enough to encompass multiple hospitals and clinics and other providers. These systems, when well-designed, can be a powerful force for improvement in the delivery of quality care, especially in the areas of coordinated inpatient and outpatient treatment, specialized and primary care, and preventive health.
Nevertheless, these systems often have limitations that could hinder their ability to deliver high quality health care. For example, physician leaders may not be able to enlist the support of their peers when they struggle with problems that are beyond their control, and teams may not be able to coordinate effectively in complex settings.
This may result in unintended consequences for quality, such as suboptimal outcomes that are not rooted in the core of the system’s design or in organizational processes. Moreover, physicians may feel stymied by the lack of clear, shared objectives that are the foundation for meaningful performance measurement and internal communication.
Centralization versus decentralization of the registry and the administrative sanctioning of physicians is an important issue that needs to be considered by the international community as it examines issues concerning the registration of medical professionals. It involves questions on the level of decentralization of financing, tasks and responsibilities in national associations or in local councils. It is also a matter of whether the information on doctors that is transferred to a national association or to the national government (such as the percentage of doctors in the labor market, practitioners, the number of doctors who work in the private sector, etc.) is reliable, and whether the information is regularly updated and up-to-date.
The answer to the latter question may vary significantly between countries, depending on the legal form of the organization and the type of registration. For example, in the United States and Japan, where there are only independent medical associations, registration is centralized within the association itself; in Denmark and Sweden, it is a matter of registering with one of the federations’ component organizations. In most countries, however, the registries of doctors are not centralized. This can lead to serious problems in the management of the medical profession, including the transfer of registrations between different provinces and the verification of medical practice status and data on physicians.