International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Evaluation of Board Performance in Iran’s Universities of Medical Sciences

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Haniye Sajadi 1
Mohammadreza Maleki 2
Hamid Ravaghi 2
Homayoun Farzan 3
Hasan Aminlou 3
Mohammad Hadi 4
1 Health Management and Economics Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Health Services Management, School of Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
4 Chancellor Office , Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
10.15171/ijhpm.2014.86
Abstract
Background
The critical role that the board plays in governance of universities clarifies the necessity of evaluating its performance. This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of the boards of medical universities and provide solutions to enhance its performance.
 
Methods
The first phase of present study was a qualitative research in which data were collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed by thematic approach. The second phase was a mixed qualitative and quantitative study, with quantitative part in cross-sectional format and qualitative part in content analysis format. In the quantitative part, data were collected through Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME). In the qualitative part, the content of 2,148 resolutions that were selected by using stratified sampling method were analyzed.
 
Results
Participants believed that the boards had no acceptable performance for a long time. Results also indicated the increasing number of meetings and resolutions of the boards in these 21 years. The boards’ resolutions were mostly operational in domain and administrative in nature. The share of specific resolutions was more than the general ones.
 
Conclusion
Given the current pace of change and development and the need to timely respond them, it is recommended to accelerate the slow pace of improvement process of the boards. It appears that more delegation and strengthening the position of the boards are the effective strategies to speed up this process.
Keywords
Governing Board
Task Performance
Evaluation
Academic Medical Centers
Subjects
  1. World Health Organization (WHO). The World Health Report 2000 - Health Systems: Improving Performance. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
  2. Mehrdad R. Health system in Iran. International Medical Community 2009; 52: 69-73.
  3. Balser JR, Marx ER, Manning JF. Contemporary challenges in academic health science center financial management [internet]. [cited 2013 July]. Available from: https://www.radcliffehealth.com/sites/radcliffehealth.com/files/samplechapter/wartman_chapt_04.pdf
  4. Wietecha M, Lipstein SH, Rabkin MT. Governance of the academic health center: Striking the balance between service and scholarship. Acad Med 2009; 84: 170-6. doi: 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181938d94
  5. Armstrong A, Unger Z. Assessment, evaluation and improvement of university council performance. Evaluation Journal of Australasia 2009; 9: 46-54.
  6. Kezar AJ. Rethinking public higher education governing boards’ performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States. Journal of Higher Education 2006; 77:  968-1008. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0051
  7. Estermann T, Nokkala T, Steinel M. University autonomy in Europe II. The Scorecard Brussels: European University Association; 2011.
  8. Michael SO, Schwartz M. Perceived role of trustees: A study of higher education institutions in Ohio. Journal of Educational Administration 1999; 37: 165-83. doi: 10.1108/09578239910263042
  9. Varghese N, Martin M. Governance Reforms and University Autonomy in Asia. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning; 2013.
  10. Collier J. Measuring and evaluating board performance. Measuring Business Excellence 2004; 8: 12-7. doi: 10.1108/13683040410555573
  11. Kiel GC, Nicholson GJ. Evaluating boards and directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review 2005; 13: 613-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00455.x
  12. Minichilli A, Gabrielsson J, Huse M. Board evaluations: making a fit between the purpose and the system. Corporate Governance: An International Review 2007; 15: 609-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00591.x
  13. Swiecicki J. Trends in board performance. Trustee 2011; 64: 24-6.
  14. Azargashb E, Arasteh H, Sabaghian Z, Towfighi J. An Evaluation of boards of trustees’ functions in public universities affiliated to ministry of science, research, and technology (1991-2006). Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education 2008; 13: 1-20.
  15. Kaskeh S, Mohebzadegan Y. Strategic development of universities explanation of functional elements of board of trustees and trend analysis of function and combinition. Social Development and Welfare Planning 2011; 2: 165-202.
  16. Ebrahimipour H, Abolhalaj M, Jafarisirizi M. [Revising the organizational system and board of trustees law, enacted by the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution of Iran]. Mashhad: Mashhad University of Medical Sciences; 2012.
  17. Confederation of NHS. Effective Boards in the NHS? A Study of their Behaviour and Culture. London: NHS Confederation; 2005.
  18. Davis JA, Batchelor SA. The Effective College and University Board: A Report of a National Survey of Trustees and Presidents. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges; 1974.
  19. Damari B, Aminlou H, Farzan H, Rahbari M, Alikhani S. Ways to improve the current performance of the boards of trustees of  Medical Universities in Iran. Iran J Public Health 2013; 42: 36-41.

 

  • Received Date 15 August 2014
  • Revised Date 03 September 2014
  • Accepted Date 10 September 2014
  • First Published Date 01 October 2014
  • Published Date 01 October 2014