Analysis of Hospital Management based on the Characteristics of Hospitals: Focusing on Financial Indicators

Abstract

A B S T R A C TThe purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the financial indicators of hospitals by identifying the hospitals' characteristics. To evaluate indicators of hospital performance, liquidity, financial performance, turnover ratio, growth rate, and productivity indicators are selected. Data was collected from the reports of the Korea Health Industry Development Institute for the 2013 -2016 period. The results of study confirmed the following: First, a comparison of financial indicators revealed that liability to total assets was generally declining. Second, for public hospitals, the total assets turnover was assessed to be actively utilized in hospitals with more than 160 beds in 2016. Third, in private hospitals, the total assets turnover did not meet in the recommended ratios. Fourth, the net profit to total assets of performance indicators was positive in private hospitals. Finally, the number of doctors per 100 beds did not change significantly, whereas the value added to personnel expenses was found to increase. The results of the study have important theoretical and practical implications for operational efficiency in hospital management based on characteristics of hospitals. This study contributes to both the practice of healthcare management and the body of literature by it employing new insights into how hospitals should operate to enhance organizational competitiveness based on a comparison of the financial indicators of Korean hospitals.

Hospital performance evaluation indicators: a scoping review

“…In more than 70% of the studies, hospital evaluation occurred at the department level, which can also be divided into three levels: administrative, clinical ward, and paramedical department. In addition, the administrative departments consist of 13 departments, including financial management [ 48 , 55 , 61 , 67 , 68 , 80 , 83 , 109 , 113 ], supply chain management and warehouse [ 15 , 43 , 84 ], value-based purchasing [ 33 , 85 ], human resource management [ 97 , 101 ], medical equipment [ 32 , 87 ], health information management department [ 90 ], information systems [ 106 ], nutritional assessment [ 93 ], energy management [ 30 , 45 , 92 ], facility management [ 52 , 53 ], building sustainability and resilience [ 35 ], research activities [ 44 ], and education [ 107 ].…”

“…[ 14 – 18 , 49 , 60 – 63 , 30 – 32 , 34 – 41 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 51 – 53 , 55 – 59 , 76 , 83 – 85 , 89 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 81 , 82 , 90 , 91 , 102 , 111 , 114 , 92 , 94 , 95 , 98 – 101 , 103 , 105 , 106 , 120 , 121 ]…”

“…[ 14 – 18 , 24 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 31 – 33 , 35 – 39 , 43 – 48 , 50 – 57 , 59 , 76 , 84 – 89 , 67 – 75 , 77 – 81 , 90 , 91 , 102 , 109 – 114 , 93 – 101 , 103 – 107 ]…”

“…[ 14 , 16 , 18 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 31 , 35 – 38 , 29 , 41 , 42 , 45 – 47 , 52 – 54 , 57 , 76 , 83 – 86 , 66 , 67 , 69 – 72 , 75 , 77 – 81 , 90 , 91 , 102 , 108 – 114 , 94 – 98 , 100 , 101 , 103 , 104 ]…”

“…Additionally, in approximately 42% (36 out of 91) of the studies, the indicators’ definitions, formulas, or descriptions have been illustrated, while less than 10% of the studies have defined measuring units, standard or benchmark units for all studied indicators [ 15 , 43 , 45 , 51 , 52 , 57 , 67 ].…”