Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

19 results

A New History of Management
  • Stephen Cummings, Todd Bridgman, John Hassard, Michael Rowlinson
  • Published online:
    21 September 2017
    Print publication:
    19 September 2017
  • Existing narratives about how we should organize are built upon, and reinforce, a concept of 'good management' derived from what is assumed to be a fundamental need to increase efficiency. But this assumption is based on a presentist, monocultural, and generally limited view of management's past. A New History of Management disputes these foundations. By reassessing conventional perspectives on past management theories and providing a new critical outline of present-day management, it highlights alternative conceptions of 'good management' focused on ethical aims, sustainability, and alternative views of good practice. From this new historical perspective, existing assumptions can be countered and simplistic views disputed, offering a platform from which graduate students, researchers, and reflective practitioners can develop alternative approaches for managing and organizing in the twenty-first century.

  • 9 - Remaking Management History: New Foundations for the Future

  • Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington, Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington, John Hassard, University of Manchester, Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter
  • Book:
    A New History of Management
    Published online:
    21 September 2017
    Print publication:
    19 September 2017, pp 269-308
    • Chapter
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Magnetic resonance imaging, knee arthroscopy, and clinical decision making: A descriptive study of five surgeons

  • Sarah Derrett, Gayle D. Walley, Stephen A. Bridgman, Paula Richards, Nicola Maffulli
  • Journal:
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 25 / Issue 4 / October 2009
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 October 2009, pp. 577-583

  • Objectives: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed magnetic resonance imaging for patients waiting for knee arthroscopy did not reduce the number of arthroscopies. Our study aimed to identify decisions made by orthopedic surgeons about whether patients on a waiting list should proceed to arthroscopy, and to describe surgeons’ decisions.

    Methods: Five surgeons were asked to Think Aloud (TA) as they made their decisions for twelve patients from the original RCT. Audiotapes of the decision making were transcribed for analysis.

    Results: For five patients, surgeons agreed about proceeding with arthroscopy, although reasoning differed. In no cases did surgeons agree about not proceeding to arthroscopy. Agreement was more likely in patients with clinically diagnosed meniscal abnormality, and less likely in patients with osteoarthritis.

    Conclusions: Surgeons’ decisions were influenced by patient wishes. For some patients, the decision to proceed with arthroscopy was based solely on clinical diagnosis; MRI may not be advantageous in these instances. Surgeons disagreed more often than they agreed about the decision to proceed with arthroscopy, particularly when OA was diagnosed. This has implications for decision making in the current NHS patient choice environment. Patients may choose a treatment provider from a list of available providers at time of original clinical assessment and diagnosis. The treating surgeon does not necessarily re-examine the patient until the day of surgery. Given the variation between surgeons about the merits of proceeding with arthroscopy, surgeons may end up in the invidious position of providing surgery to patients whom they do not believe will benefit from arthroscopy.