Physiotherapy practice in the private sector: organizational characteristics and models.

BACKGROUND: Even if a large proportion of physiotherapists work in the private sector worldwide, very little is known of the organizations within which they practice. Such knowledge is important to help understand contexts of practice and how they influence the quality of services and patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to: 1) describe characteristics of organizations where physiotherapists practice in the private sector, and 2) explore the existence of a taxonomy of organizational models. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional quantitative survey of 236 randomly-selected physiotherapists. Participants completed a purpose-designed questionnaire online or by telephone, covering organizational vision, resources, structures and practices. Organizational characteristics were analyzed descriptively, while organizational models were identified by multiple correspondence analyses. RESULTS: Most organizations were for-profit (93.2%), located in urban areas (91.5%), and within buildings containing multiple businesses/organizations (76.7%). The majority included multiple providers (89.8%) from diverse professions, mainly physiotherapy assistants (68.7%), massage therapists (67.3%) and osteopaths (50.2%). Four organizational models were identified: 1) solo practice, 2) middle-scale multiprovider, 3) large-scale multiprovider and 4) mixed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide a detailed description of the organizations where physiotherapists practice, and highlight the importance of human resources in differentiating organizational models. Further research examining the influences of these organizational characteristics and models on outcomes such as physiotherapists' professional practices and patient outcomes are needed.

"Public on the outside, private on the inside": the organizational hybridization, sense of belonging and identity strategies of the employees of a public unemployment insurance fund in Switzerland

A number of studies show that New Public Management reforms have altered the current identity benchmarks of public officials, particularly by hybridizing values or management practices. However, existing studies have largely glossed over the sense of belonging of officials when their organization straddles the concerns of public service and private enterprise, so that the boundary between public and private sector is blurred. The purpose of this article is precisely to explore this sense of belonging in the context of organizational hybridization. It does so by drawing on the results of research conducted among the employees of a public unemployment insurance fund in Switzerland. On the one hand, the analysis shows how much their markers of belonging are hybrid, multiple and constructed in negative terms (with regard to the State), while indicating that the working practices of the employees point to an identity that is nevertheless closely bound with the public sector. On the other hand, the analysis shows that the organization plays strategically with its State status, by exploiting either its private or public identity in line with the needs related to its external image. The article concludes with a discussion of the results highlighting the strategic functionality of the hybrid identity of the actors.

Patients who attend a private practice vs a university outpatient clinic: how do they differ?

Although interpersonal continuity is commonly assumed to be essential for care, some patients prefer to attend a university outpatient clinic where physicians change regularly and interpersonal continuity of care is not ensured. The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate the differences between patients attending a university outpatient clinic and patients frequenting a private practice, explore their patterns of care-seeking and their understanding of continued care. We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients attending the university medical outpatient clinic (OC) in Lausanne, Switzerland and ten randomly selected private general practices (PP). Eligible patients were >30 years, Swiss nationals or long term residents, with one or more chronic conditions and attending the same practice for >3 years. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on sociodemographic data, use of medical resources and reasons for choosing and remaining at the same practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a randomly selected subset of 26 patients to further explore their preferences. 329 patient questionnaires were completed, 219 by PP and 110 by OC patients. OC patients tended to be of lower socioeconomic status than PP patients. The main reason for choosing a PP were personal recommendation, while a higher percentage of patients chose the OC because they could obtain a first appointment quickly. A higher percentage of PP patients accorded importance to physician communication skills and trust, whereas a higher percentage of OC patients favoured investigation facilities. Qualitative data suggested that although OC and PP patients reported different reasons for consulting, their expectations on the medical and relationship level were similar. Our study suggests that the two groups of patients belong to different social backgrounds, have different patterns of care-seeking and attach importance to different aspects of care continuity. However, patients' expectations and perceptions of the physician-patient relationship are similar.