Organizational models of medical school relationships to the clinical enterprise

The authors analyzed existing relationships between medical schools and clinical enterprises in order to develop models of these relationships. The conceptual framework for the models uses three variables to assess the nature of the relationships: (1) high academic control-high clinical enterprise control; (2) high academic influence-low academic influence; and (3) self-contained system-open system (i.e., the extent to which the resources needed for clinical education are provided by the relationship between the clinical enterprise and the medical school). The authors present four conceptual models of the relationship between the medical school and the clinical enterprise: (1) The ''single ownership; owned integrated system'' is characterized by a closed clinical delivery system owned or controlled by the academic institution. (2) The ''general partner'' organization emphasizes an open clinical environment in which the medical school forms alliances with clinical entities, and the school is a dominant partner. (3) The ''limited partner'' organization operates with an open clinical delivery system that the school relates to through affiliations and contractual relationships, and the school is a less dominant partner. (4) The ''wholly owned, subsidiary'' organization operates in a controlled clinical environment in which the medical school is a subsidiary of the larger integrated delivery system. Each model is presented in its pure organizational form, then augmented with descriptions of the different ways that the medical school and other components may relate to each other. Also, the advantages and disadvantages of each model for the medical school are discussed. The authors emphasize that no model is superior to the others; instead, the best choice for a medical school depends on the history local circumstances, and leadership of the school and other organizations. The authors' intent is to assist the leaders of medical schools as they design strategies for the future relationships of their institutions.