Hospital management practices in county-level hospitals in rural China and international comparison

Table 3 International comparisons^a of hospital overall and dimensional management scores (comparable)

	Overall	Operations	Monitoring	Targets	Personnel	Generalized operations^b
US	3.00 (1st)	3.03 (1st)	3.21 (1st)	2.87 (1st)	2.92 (1st)	3.04 (1st)
UK	2.69 (2nd)	2.91 (2nd)	2.99 (2nd)	2.55 (3rd)	2.37 (5th)	2.81 (2nd)
Sweden	2.68 (3rd)	2.52 (8th)	2.99 (2nd)	2.75 (2nd)	2.46 (2nd)	2.77 (3rd)
Germany	2.64 (4th)	2.78 (5th)	2.85 (4th)	2.55 (3rd)	2.45 (3rd)	2.72 (4th)
Canada	2.52 (5th)	2.78 (5th)	2.82 (5th)	2.44 (5th)	2.17 (7th)	2.67 (5th)
Italy	2.48 (6th)	2.85 (4th)	2.67 (6th)	2.33 (6th)	2.20 (6th)	2.60 (6th)
Guizhou (China)	2.43 (7th)	2.56 (7th)	2.52 (8th)	2.27 (8th)	2.40 (4th)	2.44 (8th)
France	2.40 (8th)	2.87 (3rd)	2.59 (7th)	2.29 (7th)	2.03 (8th)	2.56 (7th)
Brazil	2.19 (9th)	2.38 (9th)	2.47 (9th)	1.99 (9th)	1.98 (9th)	2.27 (9th)
India	1.90 (10th)	2.11 (10th)	2.03 (10th)	1.55 (10th)	1.93 (10th)	1.88 (10th)

^aAll countries except Guizhou (China) were surveyed and scored using WMS; the Guizhou D-WMS data were converted to comparable scores. Data are derived from the original study [23]; while dimension scores for the nine other countries were supplied by the authors of the original study
^bOverall excluding personnel
D-WMS Development World Management Survey, UK United Kingdom, US United States, WMS World Management Survey

ISSN: 1472-6963