Skip to main content
Log in

Optimizing Urology Group Partnerships: Collaboration Strategies and Compensation Best Practices

  • Office Urology (N Shore, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Market forces in health care have created substantial regulatory, legislative, and reimbursement changes that have had a significant impact on urology group practices. To maintain viability, many urology groups have merged into larger integrated entities. Although group operations vary considerably, the majority of groups have struggled with the development of a strong culture, effective decision-making, and consensus-building around shared resources, income, and expense. Creating a sustainable business model requires urology group leaders to allocate appropriate time and resources to address these issues in a proactive manner. This article outlines collaboration strategies for creating an effective culture, governance, and leadership, and provides practical suggestions for optimizing the performance of the urology group practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilkins AL, Ouchi WG. Efficient cultures. Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Admin Sci Quart. 1983;28:468–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schall MS. A communication-rules approach to organizational culture. Admin Sci Quart. 1983;28:557–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rousseau D. Assessing organizational culture. The case for multiple methods. Scheider (ed). Climate and Culture. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

  4. Schein EH. The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organ Dynam. 1983;12:13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schein EH. Culture: the missing concept in organization studies. Admin Sci Quart. 1996;41(2):229–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marcoulides G, Heck R. 1993. Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model. Organization Science. Published Online: May 1,1993, pp. 209–225.

  7. Rousseau, D. Assessing organizational culture. The case for multiple methods. Scheider B (ed). Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

  8. Gray B. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Adler P, Heckscher C. Building a Collaborative Enterprise, 2011 http://hbr.org/2011/07/building-a-collaborative-enterprise/ar/1

  10. Porter ME, Thomas H. The strategy that will fix health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2013;91(10):50–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dana L. Jacoby, Bruce S. Maller, and Lisa R. Peltier each declare no potential conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana L. Jacoby.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Office Urology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jacoby, D.L., Maller, B.S. & Peltier, L.R. Optimizing Urology Group Partnerships: Collaboration Strategies and Compensation Best Practices. Curr Urol Rep 15, 442 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0442-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0442-1

Keywords

Navigation