Top 100 U.S. Foundations by Total Giving

Following are the 100 largest U. S. grantmaking foundations ranked by total giving, based on the most current audited financial data in the Foundation Center’s database as of June 25, 2009, according to the Foundation Center

Total giving figures include grants, scholarships, employee matching gifts, and other amounts reported as “grants and contributions paid during the year” on the 990-PF tax form, the Foundation Center said.

Total giving does not include all qualifying distributions under the tax law, e.g., loans, program-related investments, and program or other administrative expenses.

Fiscal records will be updated when more recent audited financial information is obtained, said the center.

Rank	Name/(state)	Total Giving	As of Fiscal Year End Date
1.	Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA)	$2,011,675,000	12/31/2007
2.	AstraZeneca Foundation (DE)	612,000,000	12/31/2008
3.	The Ford Foundation (NY)	526,464,000	09/30/2008
4.	The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA)	379,400,000	12/31/2008
5.	GlaxoSmithKline Patient Access Programs Foundation (NC)	344,193,427	12/31/2007
6.	Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN)	336,551,359	12/31/2008
7.	The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ)	329,322,323	12/31/2007
8.	The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA)	301,979,479	12/31/2008
9.	The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (NY)	300,198,561	12/31/2007
10.	Silicon Valley Community Foundation (CA)	291,096,834	12/31/2008
11.	Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (CA)	290,694,047	12/31/2007
12.	W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI)	272,511,561	08/31/2008
13.	The Annenberg Foundation (CA)	266,898,723	06/30/2008
14.	Janssen Ortho Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ)	259,736,936	12/31/2007
15.	The Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NY)	235,562,386	12/31/2007
16.	John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (IL)	231,856,772	12/31/2007
17.	Walton Family Foundation, Inc. (AR)	218,864,851	12/31/2007
18.	California Community Foundation (CA)	216,019,934	06/30/2008
19.	Genentech Access To Care Foundation (CA)	215,418,960	12/31/2007
20.	The Starr Foundation (NY)	207,284,873	12/31/2007
21.	The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (NE)	202,684,478	12/31/2007
22.	Greater Kansas City Community Foundation (MO)	192,905,943	12/31/2007
23.	The Annie E. Casey Foundation (MD)	192,006,321	12/31/2007
24.	The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. (NC)	188,236,685	12/31/2007
25.	The Kresge Foundation (MI)	181,439,048	12/31/2008
26.	Sanofi-Aventis Patient Assistance Foundation (NJ)	177,414,396	12/31/2007
27.	Lilly Cares Foundation, Inc. (IN)	175,211,475	12/31/2007
28.	The Lincy Foundation (CA)	170,728,247	09/30/2008
29.	The Roche Patient Assistance Foundation (NJ)	170,175,708	12/31/2007
30.	The New York Community Trust (NY)	166,053,450	12/31/2007
31.	The Duke Endowment (NC)	164,837,762	12/31/2007
32.	The Rockefeller Foundation (NY)	162,956,223	12/31/2007
33.	Merck Patient Assistance Program, Inc. (NJ)	161,500,000	12/31/2007
34.	Wyeth Pharmaceutical Assistance Foundation (NJ)	142,044,959	12/31/2007
35.	The California Endowment (CA)	140,510,981	02/28/2008
36.	Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (MI)	135,868,710	12/31/2007
37.	Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation (CA)	127,304,000	12/31/2007
38.	John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (FL)	121,267,122	12/31/2007
39.	The T. Boone Pickens Foundation (TX)	120,425,524	12/31/2007
40.	Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, Inc. (GA)	116,867,936	12/31/2008
41.	The Chicago Community Trust (IL)	115,544,031	09/30/2007
42.	Wal-Mart Foundation (AR)	110,895,707	01/31/2008
43.	The Columbus Foundation and Affiliated Organizations (OH)	110,778,929	12/31/2007
44.	Donald W. Reynolds Foundation (NV)	110,375,900	12/31/2008
45.	Richard King Mellon Foundation (PA)	109,215,672	12/31/2007
46.	Foundation for the Carolinas (NC)	106,345,459	12/31/2007
47.	Carnegie Corporation of New York (NY)	101,314,879	09/30/2008
48.	The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc. (MD)	99,570,742	02/29/2008
49.	The Wachovia Foundation, Inc. (NC)	96,909,222	12/31/2007
50.	The San Francisco Foundation (CA)	96,511,000	06/30/2008

 Source: The Foundation Center,
http://foundationcenter.org

 

 

$92.4 Million In HRSA Grants Demonstrates Interest In Funding Healthcare IT – Health Centers

Veteran grant seekers know that you must be familiar with a funder’s past history when you are conducting grant research for a new project.

That said, healthcare It is muy caliente now. But you still need to go back for your history lessons. Who really is interested in funding this particular topic?

Here’s an example worth keeping in your project file:

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) awarded grants totaling $92.4 million to help Americans access healthcare services and health centers adopt electronic health records (EHRs).

Administrator Elizabeth Duke said $61 million will aide half a million people gain access to comprehensive primary and preventive services.

The health center grants are: 

• 75 grants totaling $36.5 million to create new health centers in low-income counties;
• 25 grants totaling $2 million to develop health centers in high poverty counties;
• Grants totaling $20 million to establish 41 new health centers in 25 states; and
• Grants totaling over $1 million to expand medical capacity at four existing health centers in:Arizona, Indiana and South Carolina.

The grants are in support of former President Bush’s initiative to increase access to primary healthcare services in 1,200 communities by supporting new or expanded health centers, said Duke.

Forty six grants were awarded to help health centers adopt EHRs and other health information technology (IT).

“Health IT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare especially for residents of underserved communities, and its expansion is a priority for HRSA,” said Duke.

The health IT grants were awarded to health centers in California, Delaware, Florida, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Utah. There were:

•  25 grants totaling $27 million to implement EHRs at health centers and networks linking multiple health center grantees;
• Eight grants totaling $1 million to help health centers plan activities to adopt EHRs or other healthcare IT; and
• 13 grants totaling $3 million to help health center networks implement physician order entry, personal health records, community health records, health information exchanges and smart cards.

Address: Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-3376, www.hrsa.gov.

Foundation Giving Shows Increase

The 2009 edition of “Foundation Giving Trends” reported an increase in foundation support for 8 of the 10 major subject areas rose in 2007, the most recent year reported.

The report, by the Foundation Center, analyzed grants of $10,000 or more awarded by over 1,300 private and community foundations.

Among other key findings in the report: 

• Foundations awarded a record 188 grants of $10 million or more in 2007. Of the 10 largest, eight were made by the Gates Foundation, mainly for health-related activities and international development.
• International giving — which cuts across all areas and includes grants awarded directly to overseas recipients and to U.S.-based international programs — reached a record 23.4 percent of total grant dollars awarded.
• Among specific populations, the economically disadvantaged benefited from the largest share of grant dollars, rising to a record $5.3 billion.

Address: Foundation Center, 79 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003; (212) 620-4230, www.foundationcenter.org.

Understanding The Possibilities: AHRQ’s HIT Evaluation Funding

The types of funding that is or will be flowing from the federal government is illustrated in an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Look for similar types of funding programs coming from the various health agencies under the federal health IT stimulus money.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently said it will fund real-world applications of health information technology (HIT) to evaluate efficiency in different care settings.

“The use of HIT has been demonstrated to improve healthcare in various large healthcare delivery systems. Yet, there has been limited diffusion and evaluation of the implementation and utility of HIT in ambulatory care settings and in transitions between care settings,” said AHRQ.

The grants will “support HIT demonstration projects that evaluate factors associated with successful implementation and utilization of health IT to improve the quality, safety, effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare in ambulatory settings and in the transitions between care settings,” said AHRQ.

Funding will be awarded to applicants who submit projects within the following research areas:

1) HIT to improve the quality and safety of medication management. This includes the utilization of medication management systems and technologies; ambulatory healthcare providers and out-patient pharmacists’ use of electronic prescribing systems and/or medication management technologies; integration of evidence-based decision support for priority conditions within electronic prescribing systems; and providing patients electronic tools to support medication self-management.

2) HIT to support patient-centered care. This includes a focus on the coordination of care across transitions in care settings and the use of electronic exchange of health information to improve quality of care. AHRQ defines patient-centered care as responsive to the needs and preferences of individual patients, provides patients and/or their caregivers with access to their medical information, facilitates communication between patients, caregivers and providers, and empowers patients to be active participants in care decisions and in the daily management of their health and illnesses.

3) HIT to improve health care decision making. This includes the development, implementation, and integration of health information tools, products or systems through the use of integrated data and knowledge management. AHRQ encourages research projects that propose use of HIT applications applying principles of evidence-based medicine including the use of the best available evidence, healthcare providers’ ability to execute their best judgment, and consideration of patients’ expressed treatment preferences.

Total funding available has not been determined, but each applicant is eligible for a maximum of $1.2 million over three years and not to exceed total costs of $500,000 per year. Applications asking or budgeting for more than the allotted amount will not be reviewed, AHRQ noted.

Eligible applicants are public or non private institution; a university or college; faith-based or community-based organization; local or state government; specific federal agencies; and Native- American tribal government. AHRQ will not fund for-profit organizations for this project.

The deadline for this particular program was May 7, 2009. But the idea is to stay on top of these kinds of opportunities.

Address: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; (301) 427-1364, www.ahrq.gov.

Private Philanthropic Grants in Times of Economic Turmoil

The current global economic crisis has been the subject of Kresge Foundation positions and observations in recent weeks. 

Private philanthropy is uniquely suited to help communities weather the economic crisis and position themselves for future growth once prosperity returns, said Rip Rapson, foundation president is recent speeches before groups of non-profit executives. 

Rapson advocated for the following in “Philanthropy’s Opportunities and Responsibilities in Times of Civic Redirection: 

• Helping communities “chart a course for concerted, mutually reinforcing effort. Philanthropy,” he said, “can create neutral and safe space for the tough give-and-take that is required to agree on a strategic, over-arching community direction.” 
• Providing communities with social venture capital and aggregate other financial resources to fund essential activities so that when the economic recovery begins communities will be positioned to take full advantage of new growth opportunities.  
• Assisting in the restructuring of a community’s nonprofit ecosystem for optimal delivery of services during the economic crisis and long-term sustainability in the future.  

Nonprofits serve as our society’s moral thermostats,” Rapson said. “Organizations that activate in the presence of suffering or hardship. If there was ever a time that these organizations were needed, it is now.” 

For Rapson’s full remarks go to:
http://www.kresge.org/index.php/presidents_corner/article/philanthropys_opportunities_and_responsibilities_in_times_of_civic_redirect

 Rapson spoke to an audience of business leaders in Columbus, Ohio, to representatives of Detroit-area nonprofit organizations gathered for a seminar titled “Best Practices from the Best Managed Nonprofits.” Each speech was tailored to the respective audience. 

The nonprofit landscape of yesterday or today will not be the nonprofit landscape of tomorrow. Undercapitalization, chronically a problem, will become a death spiral. When revenues decline by 10 or even 20 percent, a nonprofit can put itself on a diet of discipline and flexibility and emerge at the other end with its mission pretty much intact. 

When demand skyrockets and revenues decline by 40 or 50 percent, however, you’re a different organization altogether.2  

Generous benefactors will almost certainly rise to the occasion and try to stabilize their organizations of choice. But they can’t begin to provide enough support to offset diminished public and philanthropic dollars.3 And their generosity will flow selectively, leaving outside the rescue pipeline vast numbers of organizations that are largely invisible to most of those donors – particularly organizations that have traditionally been heavily subsidized by government.

www.kresge.org

HHS Grants by Operating Division

Here is a report from the federal Department of Health and Human Services  that shows the total number of grants (mandatory and discretionary) and total number of grant dollars awarded by each HHS operating division (agency) for Fiscal Year 2009.

The table also shows the percentage of the total number of grants, and the percentage of total grant dollars that each agency awarded with respect to the total number of grants and grant dollars awarded by all HHS agencies.

Of the total HHS grant dollars, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) awards about two-thirds; the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) awards about 20%; and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards less than 10%.

Here is the link to the report:

http://taggs.hhs.gov/Reports/GrantsByopdiv.cfm

Achieve IT Funding Through Study Meet Case Process

To maximize funding for the adoption of a health information technology (HIT) project, a simple formula should be followed, according to Michael Christopher, development analyst, Healthcare IT Transition Group.

The study meet case process “is the overarching strategy to acquiring external funding for IT projects, health IT projects in particular,” Christopher said during an audio Webcast, “How To Get Funding and Support For Your Healthcare IT Projects” presented by the Health Grants Information Center.

To begin, an internal study should be completed to determine what type of project your organization will take on.

Internally, this will allow your organization to objectify the need and pinpoint what areas are in need of improvement.

“Model the existing reality based on the processes you had in place. Then you simulate that model until you are familiar with it and then you discover the weaknesses, the bottlenecks, the ceilings, the waste, etc. Then you model a proposed reality, you look at that model and what you’d have to tweak,” said Christopher, a chief technology officer.

“You run your model again and see what you can do to widen the bottlenecks, eliminate the ceilings, the waste, etc. And then of course the final step in the process is to compare the existing with the proposed reality and see what the cost differential is getting from A to B,” he continued.

Once the needs are highlighted then the solution can be created by identifying the resources necessary to overcome the challenges.

“Now you take that internal model and you turn it into some language that you will begin talking to potential grant makers,” Christopher said.

The internal study will not only objectify the need, but will also prepare your feasibility study to determine what resources can be accessed and how the project should be designed to fit in with funders’ goals and objectives.

Christopher suggested talking with governmental offices at the local and state level as well as private philanthropists.

“You’ll want to interview them and tell them you’re looking for external funding but most of all you’re asking for their guidance about the project – Is this the project that we need in this particular community at this time? Is this the best way to meet these objectives? – You’re going to ask for guidance because they’re going to know about strategic initiatives and some shading on those strategic initiatives, health initiatives in our region.

“You want an understanding of those initiatives in your area that matches quite perfectly with the understanding of the funding committee,” Christopher pointed out.

“The real trick here is if there is a deep, dark secret, in how to fund health IT projects, it’s that there are health IT regional initiatives out there and there will [be] more of those kind of projects, so it’s a matter of getting involved with those initiatives, getting to understand them, borrowing their language, mapping your project to their accountability, needs, review and structures. And thereby getting their endorsement for your project,” he revealed.

After determining what the community needs are and what health IT initiatives may be in place, then your project should have the final mold to appeal to funders.

The feasibility study also begins the recruitment of support.

“Approaching grant makers is really about asking for their guidance first. The money request comes later; of course they always know what the discourse is going to be about. You need their involvement on that personal level, you need that connection and I’m talking in particular here about private funding resources,” he suggested to apply to private funders rather than government agencies to quicken the cash flow and to protect future funds.

“You engage the players in this process, potential funders by actually having them help you write this [proposal]. They become the keepers of the case. They have ownership in your project,” which could result in greater funds over time Christopher explained.

“Finding and closing those deals is about talking to those new friends, learning about the programs within their organizations, and opportunities that they know of outside their organization, maybe another foundation within their network, and of course getting introductions and endorsements leading to mobilizing that case for support and getting actual cash from it,” he continued.

“If there’s a best-kept secret, it’s that where the money is going to go is where other people wanted it to go long before your project ever came along. The best strategy of course is to find out where that is and be there to take that money, so you have to adjust your project sometimes to these initiatives as you begin to go through the process of looking at federal programs that are available you’re going to see that that’s not true there as well,” Christopher concluded.

Editor’s Note: A CD-ROM recording of the speaker presentations and all conference materials for “How To Get Funding and Support For Your Healthcare IT Projects” is now available to order online or by calling toll free (800) 516-4343.

For more information visit:

www.healthresourcesonline.com/edu/hit.htm

Address: Health Grants Information Center, Health Resources Publishing, 1913 Atlantic Ave., Ste. 200, Manasquan, NJ 08736; (732) 292-1100, www.healthresourcesonline.com.

University of Virginia Study Offers Key Insights About How Industry Funding Compromises Integrity in Academic Research

A new study from the University of Virginia Health System has found that academic researchers who are highly reliant on industry support are most likely to have experienced questionable pressure from sponsors and to have first-hand knowledge of integrity breeches within their work environment.

Those breeches not only compromise the well-being of medical research participants but also impact research initiatives, publication of results, interpretation of research data and scientific advancement.

Funded by the National Institutes of Health, through the Office of Research Integrity, the UVA study was published in the March 2009 issue of Accountability in Research and marks the first attempt to acquire updated empirical data about financial arrangements and conflicts of interest between industry and investigators at academic research institutions.

The study was conducted via a survey mailed to 1,548 clinical and nonclinical researchers at the 33 U.S. universities that receive the most research funding.

To encourage candor and protect anonymity, the survey did not ask respondents to report their own behavior. Rather, it asked about their first-hand knowledge of questionable research integrity practices in their institutions and departments.

The study achieved a 48 percent response rate (703/1479) among medical and nursing school researchers. In all, completed surveys were received from 528 medical school researchers and represented every targeted institution. Respondents were predominately male, experienced, widely-published, senior-ranked researchers. Key study findings included:

Most prevalent forms of industry support – Sixty-six percent of respondents reported receiving industry support, the most prevalent forms of which were: research contracts or grants, honoraria, biomaterials, trips to professional meetings, support for staff or study coordinators, support for students or fellows, discretionary funds or gifts to the researcher’s institution, equipment, funds for publication costs and personal gifts of more than $100.

Questionable requests from industry sponsors - A minority of the 231 respondents funded by industry reported receiving questionable requests from their sponsors – 13 percent were asked to delay publication of research; nearly 8 percent were asked to tailor presentations to favor a sponsor’s drug or product; 7 percent were asked to keep their research secret; and 4 percent were asked to withhold results from publication.

However, the frequency of questionable requests was considerably higher among the 80 survey respondents who received several forms of industry support and rated that support as very or extremely important.

“We found that 28 percent of these investigators had been asked either to withhold results, delay publication, present results more favorably or keep the project secret,” says the study’s lead author, Patricia M. Tereskerz, J.D., PhD, director of the Program in Ethics and Policy in Healthcare at the UVA Center for Biomedical Ethics and Humanities.

Compromises in industry-supported research – When questioned about their first-hand knowledge of industry-supported research that had been compromised, only a small minority of respondents answered affirmatively. But, such knowledge was significantly higher among a subset of 94 respondents who rated industry support most important: 25 percent had knowledge of sponsor-initiated publication delays, 17 percent knew about results being reported to favor a sponsor and 11 percent were aware of instances when sponsors had suppressed publication.

Compromises by colleagues supported by industry - Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported that colleagues within their department or work unit were receiving industry support. This group was more likely than respondents without colleagues supported by industry to have first-hand knowledge of delayed publication, results presented to favor a sponsor and suppression of results.

This group attributed other integrity breeches to industry sponsorship, including compromises in the publication of research results, in the interpretation of data, in research initiatives and in scientific advancement.

Compromises to well-being of research participants – Of the 173 respondents with colleagues supported by industry, 15 had first-hand knowledge that sponsorship had caused compromises to the well-being of research participants at their institution. Forty percent of these cases involved serious or significant well-being compromises.

“Although such compromises occur infrequently, our concern is that they occur at all,” notes Tereskerz. “There should be zero tolerance for compromising the well-being of human research participants in any study, regardless of how the study is funded.”

Disclosure practices - Responses from 139 medical researchers indicate that many institutions do not require investigators to disclose their relationships with industry to research participants. Disclosure practices at such institutions vary considerably.

According to Tereskerz, study findings offer three major take-away messages:

1. While financial relationships with industry are prevalent and considered important by academic investigators, these relationships are associated with compromises in research integrity.
2. Efforts to educate academic researchers about their moral obligations regarding conflicts of interest have not succeeded.
3. Many investigators in leading U.S. universities know about integrity breeches in industry-sponsored research, raising concerns about a culture of silence within academia and about the reluctance of researchers to perform self-monitoring.

In addition to Tereskerz, study authors were Ann B. Hamric, PhD, RN, of the UVA School of Nursing, Thomas M. Guterbock, PhD, of the UVA Center for Survey Research and Jonathan D. Moreno, PhD, Professor of Medical Ethics and of History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA.

Related link:

Prevalence of Industry Support and its Relationship to Research Integrity

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910297708~db=jour~order=page

Rutgers College of Nursing Receives $3 Million Grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has awarded the College of Nursing at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, a four-year, $3 million grant to prepare future nurse faculty members. The grant is part of RWJF’s $22 million, five-year “New Jersey Nursing Initiative” (NJNI), which will increase the number of nurse faculty available to educate the next generation of nurses in the state.

The Initiative’s central component is a Faculty Preparation Program that includes grants to schools of nursing around the state, and support for 46 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) New Jersey Nursing Scholars.

Rutgers College of Nursing will lead a collaborative effort with Seton Hall University College of Nursing as part of this Faculty Preparation Program. Four other nursing schools or collaboratives received similar grants in New Jersey.

“Right now we have students who cannot be accommodated for nursing studies because of the lack of faculty resources. Rutgers is eager to work with Seton Hall in addressing the critical need for nurse faculty members. The generous support of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation will be indispensable in achieving our goals.” Richard L. McCormick, President, Rutgers University

“…without nursing faculty prepared to educate and groom future generations, we will find ourselves in the middle of an insoluble dilemma given the aging population. This is a particularly critical problem in New Jersey.” A. Gabriel Esteban, Provost, Seton Hall University

“New Jersey nursing education programs face many problems which make it difficult to prepare enough nurses for the future needs of this state. One serious obstacle is the lack of faculty candidates who are qualified to teach. This situation has developed over the years as graduate education in nursing has become overwhelmingly oriented to direct care, and insensitive to the need for teachers and managers. Much of this was due to thegrowth of the science, and the assumption that if you could do it, you could teach it or manage it. Let us hope that we have not become too smart, too late. We now see the need for skilled nurses as teachers of professionals, and for a corps of nurses ready to lay their roots in the academe.” Steven J. Diner, Chancellor, Rutgers University, Newark

“This grant is the beginning of a new era in education and partnerships for the College. We will be sharing resources much more readily and liberally across university structures. This can only result in the most enriched relationships for our students, and the desire to vest their careers in New Jersey higher education.” Lucille A. Joel, Interim Dean & Project Director-NJNI, Rutgers College of Nursing

The RWJF Scholars will each receive a $50,000 annual stipend, enabling them to study full time for the four years needed to earn their Ph.D. degrees, in exchange for a commitment to teach in the state for three years after graduation. The grant will also pay for scholars’ tuition, fees, laptops, books, and other direct costs of the program.

The RWJF grant is the largest grant ever made to Rutgers College of Nursing. In addition to training future nurse faculty members, the project will promote a collaborative partnership with the only other New Jersey based Ph.D. program in nursing, Seton Hall University College of Nursing.

The Rutgers College of Nursing operates under the auspices of Rutgers University in Newark, consistently ranked by U.S. News & World Report as the most diverse national university in the United States. Half the students admitted to the Rutgers Ph.D. program in nursing under the RWJF “New Jersey Nursing Initiative” come from minority backgrounds.

In addition to supporting the RWJF New Jersey Nursing Scholars, the Faculty Preparation Program is working to develop, implement, and evaluate new curricula for students at the master’s and doctoral levels. The “New Jersey Nursing Initiative” is also working to create innovative approaches to increase faculty capacity; make academe a preferred career; lead focused policy initiatives; increase sustainable funding; build local, regional and statewide collaboration; and develop creative strategies to increase nurse education capacity.

More information about the “New Jersey Nursing Initiative” and nursing in New Jersey is available at www.njni.org.

———–

About the College of Nursing at Rutgers University

Rutgers University has been involved in the education of nurses since the early 1940s when the Newark and Camden campuses offered courses in public health nursing. The nursing program at the Newark campus was established in 1952. In 1955, the School of Nursing became the College of Nursing. In that same year, the graduate program in psychiatric/mental health nursing was initiated, becoming the first master’s program in clinical nursing in the United States, and probably in the world. This was followed in the late 1970s by an array of additional clinical options for advanced practice nurses. In 1989, the Ph.D. program in nursing began, the first in the state of New Jersey, followed by the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) in 2007. The College’s educational programs are fully accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE).

Parkwest Medical Center: Focusing on Patient and Staff Satisfaction

This is an interesting report of a case history study funded by the Commonwealth Fund.

Parkwest Medical Center is located Knoxville, Tenn. It is a not-for-profit community hospital, nonteaching with 462 beds.

Distinction: Top 5 percent of more than 700 large hospitals (300+ beds) in the portion of patients who gave a rating of 9 or 10 out of 10 when asked how they rate the hospital overall.

Timeframe: October 2006 through June 2007. To be included, hospitals must have reported at least 300 surveys. See the Appendix for full methodology.

This case study describes the strategies and factors that appear to contribute to high patient satisfaction at Parkwest Medical Center. It is based on information obtained from interviews with key hospital personnel and materials provided by the hospital during October and November 2008.

Summary: Eighty-seven percent of patients recently discharged from Parkwest Medical Center said they would recommend the hospital to a family member or friend—a patient satisfaction level 19 percentage points higher than the national average.

Like other hospitals in this case study series, Parkwest has focused on hiring and supporting staff who subscribe to its vision of providing excellent patient care and sharing responsibility for doing so.

The hospital’s goals for quality care and patient satisfaction are spread through the Leadership Evaluation Module, through which the performance goals and standards for administrators, managers, and staff are aligned and managers are held responsible for the performance of the staff who report to them.

Performance-based rewards and recognition help to reinforce the standards.

Read the complete case study.

————————

This study was based on publicly available information and self-reported data provided by the case study institution(s). The aim of Commonwealth Fund–sponsored case studies of this type is to identify institutions that have achieved results indicating high performance in a particular area of interest, have undertaken innovations designed to reach higher performance, or exemplify attributes that can foster high performance. The studies are intended to enable other institutions to draw lessons from the studied institutions’ experience that will be helpful in their own efforts to become high performers. Even the best-performing organizations may fall short in some areas or make mistakes—emphasizing the need for systematic approaches to improve quality and prevent harm to patients and staff. The Commonwealth Fund is not an accreditor of health care organizations or systems, and the inclusion of an institution in the Fund’s case study series is not an endorsement by the Fund for receipt of health care from the institution.