1. A summary of three main points you gained from the reading (You may list the points, but elaborate each enough to show your thoughts so you can talk about them and we can understand them.)
2. Your findings and connections that you make (What seems particularly true or sensible to you as you read, and why you think so? Does this article connect in any ways to: course lecture content and other readings in this course, prior knowledge?)
Write about your ponderings or puzzlements. What has left you confused or wondering or uncertain? What didn't you understand? What questions does it raise in your mind?
3. Rating. On a scale of 1-5 (with 1 the most positive and 5 the least) how would you rate this reading in terms of its value to you in learning.
1. Explain how having a mission make a difference? Review the M/V/V Statement of Intermountain Health Care: http://intermountainhealthcare.org/about/overview/Pages/mission.aspx * 1.1. How would the mission be different if a large, for-profit, publicly listed corporation like HCA were running it? List the major clauses that would have to be reconsidered, and suggest a for-profit wording.
1.2. How would the mission be different if a governmental unit ran the organization? * Or the institution of your choice. Note that several missions are summarized in Exhibit 1.7.
2. Describe the board's role in quality and safety? How does the board ensure that the highest quality of care is being provided? To whom does the board delegate the responsibility of carrying out clinical quality and safety?
3. Who is responsible for hiring and evaluating the CEO. What is the potential for CEO evaluation to be superficial and ineffective? What kind of information would the board collect and use for the CEO evaluation? What are potential conflicts in the process?
4. Explain the role of medical staff leadership, and why should they be appointed by and accountable to the governing board? What might happen if leadership selection was delegated entirely to the medical staff? What might happen if the medical staff was ignored in appointing leadership? What might happen if it were delegated to the executive?