Survey of determinants of strategic investment decisions in private medical practice in Germany

Introduction

Healthcare requires efficient management tools with strategic investment to create medical practice operational excellence. Private medical practitioners who work independently need to evaluate complex business decisions so they can improve healthcare quality and financial stability across their practice while also adapting to new healthcare developments. The proper examination of these influence factors helps improve resource allocation decisions, which lead to sustainable medical practice viability (1,2). Medical practice management demands that organizations unite financial consolidation activities with operational improvements and patient-oriented resource allocation (3). The expanding healthcare challenges, together with rising administrative requirements for healthcare providers, demand that practitioners implement standardized management systems. The deployed tools boost operational effectiveness since they sustain regulatory requirements and maintain superior patient services alongside financial optimization.

Medical practices need to use their management tools effectively to achieve operational effectiveness, together with better patient satisfaction and superior service outcomes (4). Medical practices gain their effectiveness from three essential tools, which include quality management systems and process optimization frameworks, together with employee satisfaction metrics (5). Quality management systems in medical practice ensure the fulfillment of best practices and regulatory guidelines, and minimize risks to build trust between medical practitioners and their patients (6). Medical professionals can achieve more efficient healthcare delivery through process optimization frameworks, which help them eliminate inefficiencies while cutting down waiting periods. Worker satisfaction metrics evaluate team emotions, which directly determine both workflow output and the standard of care received by patients (7). Research needs to examine why healthcare providers show different levels of acceptance and importance toward these available resources.

Although numerous international research studies have been conducted regarding the implementation of investment planning and management tools in private medical practice, the actual empirical research regarding the topic and small private medical practices in Germany is rather lacking. Most of the available literature is either focused on hospital-level systems or the more general European healthcare settings, and does not consider the operational, financial, and cultural peculiarities of German solo or small-group practices. The present study fills this gap as it presents contextualized insights straight out of German practitioners.

Multiple factors impact investment choices within private medical practices, which include cost-effectiveness alongside an assessment of required equipment acquisitions and advice from external sources, and market direction (8). Medical technology development at a rapid speed presents private practitioners with the complicated task of determining when and how to enhance equipment and grow their medical facilities. The outcome of these decisions depends on a thorough financial assessment that demonstrates actual improvements in patient healthcare (9). These investment choices heavily rely on the anticipation of financial returns and equipment upkeep expenses, and insurance provider reimbursement opportunities. Medical practice management undergoes decision-making changes due to external elements. Multiple external forces that include peer suggestions and industry developments, and regulatory requirements, direct investment approaches (10). Medical professionals depend on peer evaluations regarding the use of management systems and medical devices prior to purchasing them. The participation in industry conferences and workshops, and trade fairs gives medical practitioners access to new healthcare technology and management practices, which helps them decide what to invest in (11). The current market factors directly impact how medical practitioners divide their organizational resources. The economic situation, along with healthcare reimbursement rules and medical service market competition, determines whether healthcare providers will invest in new equipment (12). Urban medical practices that want to maintain market competition opt for high-end diagnostic machines, whereas rural practices select less-expensive solutions to make healthcare more accessible to patients (13).

Strategic investment planning with management tools brings many benefits to organizations, yet implementing these tools remains difficult. Doctors avoid adopting healthcare innovations because of restricted financial budgets and their hesitance to change, their need for adequate training, and their uncertainty whether the tools will provide sustained advantages (14). Private practitioners who maintain small clinics face financial challenges that make it hard to find a budget for high-end management tools or expensive acquisitions. Doctors choose to avoid technology implementation because they want to preserve their established operational practices and find it burdensome to learn digital systems (15).

The implementation of both specialized training programs and financial incentives stands as essential to encourage small clinics to adopt advanced management systems, which overcome their barriers (16). Healthcare policymakers, together with professional organizations, should use guidance programs and financial assistance along with knowledge-sharing platforms to facilitate this transition (17). Industry stakeholders who work with medical practitioners should collaborate to connect existing resources with practical implementation needs, so management tools match healthcare provider requirements (2).

The research aims to evaluate both the implementation and significance of management tools in private medical practices and identify various elements that guide investment choices. The study investigates healthcare professionals’ financial and operational approaches to generate guidance that improves medical practice decision-making processes. Information about such factors will enable the creation of frameworks that enhance private medical practice management efficiency and improve patient satisfaction while securing financial stability.

Research objectives

This study aims to assess the use and relevance of management tools and investment decisions in medical practices. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions:

• What factors influence doctors’ decisions to adopt management tools in their practice?
• How do doctors evaluate and prioritize new acquisitions in terms of cost-effectiveness and quality improvement?
• What role do external influences, such as peer recommendations and market trends, play in shaping investment decisions?

The study is not aimed at proving causality but aims at addressing association and perceptions regarding decision-making processes. By addressing these questions, the study contributes to a better understanding of decision-making processes in medical practices and offers insights for optimizing resource allocation and financial planning in the healthcare sector.

Literature review

Multiple elements affect the decision-making process regarding non-reimbursable services and new purchases in medical facilities. The existing research literature shows how doctors think about these services during evaluation.

Cost and billing mechanisms in medical practices

Under German medical billing rules, the standardized assessment scale/Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM) pays for statutory health insurance patients, while private patients pay according to the fee schedule for physicians (18). Medical practitioners need to understand complicated billing structures to achieve financial stability, according to Kaplan (19). The correct documentation process serves as a fundamental requirement for compliance goals, and it helps minimize financial losses (20). Medical practice investment evaluations require a full understanding of billing procedures to be successful. Medical practitioners require updated policies that make reimbursement processes simpler and minimize paperwork requirements in their daily work. Medical practices experience higher efficiency along with financial stability by receiving clear regulations and automated billing systems (21).

Economic efficiency in healthcare investments

Alongside other factors, physicians consider medical devices’ economic efficiency to be crucial when making purchases. The financial viability of medical devices depends on acquisition costs alongside operating expenses and return on investment (ROI), utilization rate, and technological advancements (22). Doctors must verify that their purchases fulfill requirements for both financial sustainability and regulatory standards and clinical outcome enhancement. The financial benefits of leasing and financing allow medical facilities to preserve their capital while they receive new technology updates (23). Medical device investment choices of physicians include thorough examinations of operational expenses and technological effectiveness. Current research demonstrates that healthcare providers need to conduct cost-benefit evaluations when choosing new medical technologies. The financial sustainability of the application grows stronger through investments in future-proof equipment with multiple functionalities, as it adapts medical practices more effectively to evolving medical advancements (24).

Individual health services/Individuelle Gesundheitsleistungen (IGeL) from physicians’ perspective

IGeL represent supplementary medical care that statutory health insurance does not cover (25). Medical experts see IGeL services as instruments to widen patient treatment options while creating new sources of revenue, according to Ewert (26). Physicians base their decisions about providing IGeL services on three main factors that include necessary medical need, along with ethical standards, and patient requests. Online health information has become more accessible, which influences physician decisions about IGeL because patients now possess better knowledge and request custom and preventative medical services (27). Research unveils the need for doctors and patients to maintain open communication about service prices and advantages to develop mutual trust (28).

Management tools in healthcare practices

Medical establishments must find strategic approaches that unify operational success with financial stability. Healthcare professionals devote attention to process enhancement and efficiency improvements to improve workflow and decrease administrative strain in their practice (29). Quality management systems in combination with employee satisfaction monitoring led to efficiency improvements of healthcare services and positive impacts on physician well-being (30). Doctors use digital job sites and engage in purposeful internet-based recruitment of medical personnel because healthcare management has become increasingly digitalized, according to Babka (31). Modern practice management activities require telemedicine and digital health solutions for their crucial implementation. Digital health infrastructure implementation lowers administrative workloads and enhances medical practice workflow efficiency, and grants patients better access to care, states (32).

Factors influencing physicians’ investment decisions

Physicians use examination validity and legal liability, and efficiency as primary factors to decide new medical purchase decisions (33). Running costs and financial returns stand among the essential economic elements that health professionals consider (34). The literature demonstrates that capital needs and certifications influence purchasing choices, but medical practitioners prioritize efficiency and quality assurance in decision-making processes (35). Medical technology investments by physicians allow them to achieve financial stability while improving patient care quality (1). The decision-making process for investments in modern medicine benefits from technological development because contemporary healthcare facilities need diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, which enhances their delivery methods and market position (36). Healthcare equipment assessment by doctors considers both long-term adaptation capabilities and scalability aspects to allow future medical technology changes.

Methods

Study design

Researchers implemented a cross-sectional survey that focused on private medical doctors. The questionnaire was designed to structure the evaluation of management tools usage alongside their relevance and purchase decisions, and factors affecting new medical equipment acquisition. The researcher surveyed over three months, starting from November 2024 and ending in January 2025, which included the recruitment periods, time of exposure, and follow-up.

Pretesting

Pilot testing of the questionnaire was done on five private practitioners before complete deployment. The purpose was to measure clarity, perception of items, and an approximation of time of completion. According to the responses of the participants, only slight adjustments of words and question sequence were implemented. The demographics of the pilot sample were close to the sample in the Final, especially as regards the age and the practice.

Research participants

The research included medical doctors who worked in German private medical practices as its primary subject group. The researcher obtained participant recruits from professional medical associations and online doctor networks, and through direct email invitations. Out of this total, the study has reached out to the population of 530 medical practitioners, 500 by circular writing and 30 by personal communication; 33 practitioners received the survey and returned it, giving a response rate of approximately 6.23%. There was no formal calculation of sample size, as it is exploratory research. Inclusion criteria were:

• Doctors are currently practicing in private medical settings;
• A minimum of five years of professional experience;
• Involvement in decision-making processes regarding practice management and investments.

The study recognized that the sample could be prone to self-selection bias because respondents might have had some special interest or experience in the field of management and investment decision-making, and therefore, they may not be fully representative of the broader population of private practitioners.

Questionnaire structure and instruments

A structured questionnaire was divided into three thematic parts. The questionnaire was uploaded to SurveyMonkey, and participants were contacted by email with a link to the survey. The researchers created a questionnaire that represented its content from existing studies with expert contributions and received additional refinement through testing with a small practitioner group. The final questionnaire included sections for demographic information as well as questions about management practices and decision criteria for investment and external factors affecting purchasing decisions.

The questionnaire for doctors was structured in three parts and consists of 46 total questions:

• Part I—management (11 items);
• Part II—investments (17 items);
• Part III—calculation (13 items);
• Part IV—personal details (5 items).

Some item samples and scaling formats were:

• Part I—management: items evaluated practice management tool utilization and applicability.
  • Sample item: What are your practical management tools of choice (controlling, benchmarking, quality management) with multiple-choice options?
  • Another item: “How relevant do you find these practice management tools?”, with a 5-point Likert scale of 1 = very irrelevant to 5 = very relevant, and 8888 = I don’t know.
• Part II—investments: concentrated on decision-making rules and determining factors in equipment purchase.
  • Sample item: How applicable do you find the following factors to be when buying a new medical device? With factors like acquisition cost, training requirements, data security, and so on, with the same 5-point Likert scale [1–5], I don’t know if a possible response.
  • The other one: “What is your average frequency of new purchases in practice? (open numerical entry).
• Part III: calculation: discussed financial and operational performance indicators perceptions.
  • Sample question: What are the issues that are decisive in determining the profitability of your practice?
  • The complete questionnaire is listed in Appendix 1, which makes the research process clear and reproducible.

The study was conducted and reported according to the CROSS (Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies) to provide a full and clear report of cross-sectional survey methodology.

Sampling method

Non-probability convenience sampling method was employed. Email invitations were addressed to the doctors who were identified through publicly accessible databases and professional network directories. There was no stratification or clustering on a geographic basis. Though efforts were made to attain a heterogeneous sample of respondents, the sample cannot be said to be statistically representative of all the private medical practitioners in Germany.

Ethical consideration

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the FSEV UK (Approval No. 216-65/2025), and informed consent was obtained from the participants. Responses were all anonymous and would be stored in a password-protected server and could only be accessed by the main researcher. The procedures of data encryption and access restriction were applied to guarantee confidentiality.

Survey administration and data integrity

SurveyMonkey applied to take the survey online. The settings were also done in such a way that multiple submissions by a device and IP address were avoided. No training in interviewers was needed. The participants were informed of the purpose of the study, ethical considerations, and how to participate through a standardized email invitation.

Statistical analysis

The data collected online in SurveyMonkey were extracted as Microsoft Excel files and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 27, SPSS, IBM, Armonk, USA). The analysis was carried out descriptively by determining the response frequencies. The results were presented graphically and in tabular form. It was an exploratory descriptive study. Since this was an exploratory survey, reliability and validity testing data, such as Cronbach’s alpha, were not carried out. Questionnaire items were, however, informed by former literature as well as consultation with experts. Thus, no inferential statistics were used, e.g., confidence interval, P value, or multivariable models. It consisted of finding the patterns in practice behaviors and decision-making patterns.

No responses were missing because all the fields were defined as required in the online form. It did not use any transformations or derived variables. There was no adjustment for non-response bias because there was no data on the non-respondents. An adjustment of statistical non-response bias was not applied. Low response rate and the possibility of self-selection are recognized to be limitations of this study and have been addressed in the section of limitations section. Neither weighting nor propensity score was used. No sensitivity analysis was done.

Results

Demographic characteristics of the participants

Most participants in the physician group were male (90.9%), with an average age of 48.6 years and an average of 12.9 years of professional experience in outpatient work (Table 1). The age groups 40–49 and 50–59 years were the most represented, each accounting for one-third of the participants. Most of them worked in rural areas (81.8%). Almost half of the participants (48.5%) were the sole decision-makers when deciding on new purchases, and 81.8% were working as doctors.

Management tools in medical practices

The management tools used in the medical practices are shown in descending order of frequency in Figure 1. Quality management was used most frequently (78.8%), followed by process optimization and efficiency (75.8%). Employee satisfaction was recorded in almost three-quarters of the practices (72.7%), while patient satisfaction was recorded by more than half of the practices (57.6%). Controlling was used by more than half of the practices (51.5%), while marketing and patient acquisition were used in around 42% of practices. Benchmarking was the least used management tool, used by around a third of practices (30.3%).

Figure 1 Management tools used by the doctors surveyed.

Figure 2 provides information on the relevance of the various management tools in medical practices as perceived by the doctors surveyed. The relevance was rated on a scale from “very irrelevant” to “very relevant”. Process optimization and efficiency were rated as “somewhat relevant” by 66.7% of respondents and as “very relevant” by 21.2%. Recording employee satisfaction was rated as “somewhat relevant” by 51.5% of respondents and as “very relevant” by 48.5%. Quality management was rated as “very relevant” by 30.3% of respondents and “somewhat relevant” by 18.2%. On the other hand, marketing and patient acquisition were rated as “rather irrelevant” by 30.3% of respondents and “very irrelevant” by 21.2%. Controlling was rated as “neutral” by 39.4% of respondents and as “somewhat relevant” by 36.4%. Benchmarking was rated as “rather irrelevant” by a larger proportion of respondents (21.2%) and as “very irrelevant” by 3%.

Figure 2 Relevance of the tools used from the perspective of the doctors surveyed.

The most prevalent job recruitment strategy among the respondents who participated in this study is online job portals (93.9%), followed by job advertisements in print media, with 69.7% (Figure 3). Active searches in online portals (51.5%), social media (33.3%), and active searches in print media (15.2%) were somewhat less common.

Figure 3 Sources used by the doctors surveyed to find employees.

Figure 4 on the frequency of new purchases in medical practices shows that many practices (33.3%) made two new purchases per year. Around a quarter (24.2%) made three new purchases per year. Overall, many practices made at least one new purchase per year.

Figure 4 Frequency of new purchases.

The most common sources of information for new purchases in medical practices were experiences from colleagues (84.8%) and trade fairs (81.8%) (Figure 5). Training courses were used as a source of information by 72.7% of practices, and print media and trade journals by 42.4% of practices. Websites or newsletters from manufacturers (24.2%) and direct information from manufacturers (9.1%), on the other hand, were used much less frequently as sources of information.

Figure 5 Information sources from the doctors surveyed for new purchases. Factors influencing the decision-making process.

As part of the survey, the participating doctors were asked to rate the relevance of various factors influencing the decision to purchase new equipment in their practice. The results are shown in Figures 6,7. The validity of the survey was rated as “very relevant” in the decision-making process by 93.9% of respondents. Another very relevant factor was liability issues in connection with the examination of a newly acquired device or a new method, which was rated as “very relevant” by 84.8% of respondents.

Figure 6 Relevance of various influencing factors in the decision-making process for new purchases.

Figure 7 Relevance of the economic efficiency of various practical factors concerning new acquisitions.

The duration of the examination was rated as “very relevant” by 69.7% of respondents, as was the personal time saved. The running costs of a new acquisition were rated as “somewhat relevant” by 66.7% of respondents. Regarding remuneration, 42.4% of respondents stated that they considered this factor to be “very relevant”. The need for application training (42.4% as “rather irrelevant”) and further training (30.3% as “rather irrelevant”) were less relevant decision factors for new purchases. Other factors, such as simple billing and the ability to delegate to staff, played a subordinate role in the decision-making process. In terms of the cost-effectiveness of new purchases, the factors most frequently rated as “very relevant” were the medical necessity of the service (81.8%), profit efficiency (75.8%), and running costs (75.8%) (Figure 7). The efficiency of work performance was rated as “very relevant” by 48.5% of respondents, and the efficiency of the device’s costs by 33.3%.

Factors such as investment, capital requirements, financing requirements, and certification were considered less relevant, with only a small proportion of respondents rating each of these factors as “very relevant”. Capital and financing requirements were perceived as less crucial by the majority.

Discussion

Management tools

The analysis of management tools in medical practices shows significant trends regarding the relevance of the tools used for practice management. Certain tools play a particularly central role in practice organization, while others are considered less important.

One prominent trend is the high importance of process optimization and efficiency. This tool is perceived as “rather relevant” or “very relevant” by most respondents. In an increasingly competitive and resource-constrained healthcare sector, efficient processes are essential to make the best use of practice resources while ensuring the quality of patient care (37). The strong interest in process optimization may reflect the need to continuously improve practice organization to remain competitive in a dynamic environment (38). This development might suggest the increasing importance of efficient workflows as the basis for stable and sustainable practice management. Another significant trend is the recording of employee satisfaction, which is rated as particularly relevant by a large proportion of respondents. A satisfied and motivated workforce not only contributes to the quality of patient care but also promotes a positive working atmosphere and strengthens team dynamics (39). This could indicate that many practices have an increasing interest in promoting not only patient loyalty but also the well-being of employees. Employee satisfaction can therefore be interpreted as an indicator of well-functioning practice management, taking into account both the working environment and operational efficiency (40).

In the area of quality management, the assessment is somewhat differentiated. While quality management is seen as fundamentally important, it does not fall into the category of “very relevant” tools in all practices. Nevertheless, it remains an indispensable tool due to the ethical and legal importance of treatment quality (41,42). The different assessments may indicate that some practices may have less formalized approaches to quality management or that the continuous improvement of standards is less systematically pursued in some contexts. In contrast, marketing, patient acquisition, and benchmarking are given less weight in practice management. This could be explained by the already high patient demand in certain specialist areas (43). It might suggest that marketing is less of a priority in many practices, as demand for medical services is often considered to be stable or increasing, although marketing tools can make valuable contributions to increasing practice efficiency (44,45). The comparatively low interest in benchmarking also indicates that practice owners often rely on their own experience and internal assessments instead of measuring themselves against external best practices. Though these results are to be considered with caution as they can vary significantly depending on the practice size, specialty, or geographic location, which were not targeted in this survey.

The wide range of assessments in other tools shows that many practices have specialized or individually developed management approaches that do not fall into the usual categories. Such diversity may represent local or discipline-level preferences and not be generalizable.

Considering these results, special training is indicated, at least to those practitioners and practice staff who have little business or information technology (IT) experience. Such training might be things like financial literacy training to aid in understanding cost structures and risk in investments; workflow integration training that aids in matching new tech with the existing practice routines, and technology demonstrations that are matched to the realities of small medical spaces. Such point-of-need interventions have the potential to support more informed decisions and increase utilization of applicable management tools in daily practice (46-50).

On the whole, the results should be treated as indicative, but not conclusive, as they point to the areas of focus within the surveyed practices, because of the small sample size and possible contextual diversity.

Recruitment

The available results on recruitment in medical practices show a clear trend towards digital recruitment channels. Particularly striking is the high use of job advertisements on online job boards, which are used by almost all doctors (93.9%). Previous research shows that digital recruitment platforms increase their value for talent acquisition activities (51,52). Medical practices choose online job boards because they provide wide access to candidates and fast application methods, and focused candidate targeting. The growing healthcare sector digitalization, combined with increased internet use throughout professional life, has made online job boards the preferred recruitment method (53).

Job postings within print media stand as the second most popular recruitment method for medical practices, since 69.7% of practices utilize this approach. The recruitment method continues to be vital even though society experiences digital transformation because it remains useful for people who mostly depend on traditional media, especially in rural areas. The reach and cost of print advertising remain limited in comparison to digital channels, yet it fulfills essential recruitment needs, particularly for rural practices along with specialized fields (54).

Medical practices prefer direct approaches through specialist-oriented online platforms and portals since 51.5% of them actively search for business opportunities there. Through this recruitment method, medical practices can better identify suitable candidates while checking their qualifications and interests, which results in a more efficient recruitment process. The increasing number of recruiting activities moving into digital spaces demonstrates the growing popularity of online portals.

The percentage of medical facilities using social media for recruitment amounts to 33.3% according to recent statistics. The recruitment process for medical practices through social networks has grown in recent years because LinkedIn, XING, and Facebook allow medical practices to contact specialists and potential candidates specifically (55). Numerous medical practices rely on online job boards more than social media platforms for recruitment because they remain uncertain about using professional social networks for this purpose. Active print media recruitment methods remain secondary to digital recruiting approaches since medical practices perform this search only 15.2% of the time. Multiple industries demonstrate that traditional recruitment practices are gradually shifting toward digital recruitment methods (56).

The collection of alternative methods represents a tiny fraction of 12% of the total recruitment process. The approaches represent specialized recruitment methods that differ between fields and practices. These results, informative as they are, cannot be generalized because of the homogeneity of the sample and should be viewed with caution.

Medical practices select online job boards and active searches on online portals as their favored digital recruitment methods to find new personnel. Nevertheless, the possibility of researching whether such patterns of digital recruitment are replicated throughout the sector could be confirmed in future research with the wider geographical coverage and types of practices involved.

Decision-making factors for new purchases

Medical practices focus heavily on economic aspects and medical capabilities when making new purchase decisions, according to the research results. Quality and efficiency factors of medical services emerge as the most significant parameters in this process. Testing validity stands out as the most essential factor because it measures equipment accuracy and procedure reliability. Every new acquisition must directly improve care quality according to Dewa and Graban (57,58).

The aspect of liability stands out as essential among all considerations. Most participants identify legal safeguards, together with lower exposure to potential lawsuits, as vital selection criteria. The risk of adverse legal consequences that emerge from wrong decision-making or problems with medical devices explains this response. The results demonstrate efficiency as a central aspect among all identified factors. An important element in decision-making involves reducing time usage for medical staff and patients. The practice team needs faster examinations, while their work performance needs to be more efficient. The factors prove essential to create patient satisfaction while strengthening practice operations that lead to better overall practice performance (59).

The economic aspects function as significant factors. The running costs, which influence the profitability of a new acquisition over time, are also of great importance. Practices appear to be particularly keen on making investments that are sustainable in the long term and do not place an unnecessary burden on the operating budget. At the same time, profit optimization through new acquisitions is considered important, with profitability and the ability to steer the practice in a profit-oriented direction as key criteria. Other factors, such as the need for application training or further training, appear to be less important compared to the aspects mentioned above. This suggests that practices are primarily looking for solutions that have an immediate positive impact on the quality of patient care and operational efficiency, while additional training is seen as detrimental.

The decision-making process in medical practices for new acquisitions is largely characterized by a combination of medical necessity, efficiency considerations, and legal and economic aspects. These results, however, are premised on a particular and narrow sample, and they should not be generalized without additional data.

Limitations

This study has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the sample size is relatively small (33 participants), which may limit the generalizability of the results to a broader population of private medical practitioners. A larger sample size would provide more robust insights into the trends and decision-making processes in medical practice management. Second, the study relies on self-reported data collected through an online questionnaire. While this method allows for efficient data collection, it may introduce response bias, as participants might provide socially desirable answers or overestimate the effectiveness of their management strategies. Future studies could complement self-reported data with objective financial and operational performance metrics.

Secondly, its demographic skew. The result can be biased because 90.9% of respondents were male, and 81.8% worked in rural locations, which does not represent the full range of medical practices in Germany, including urban or female-dominated practices. This imposes possible bias and limits the extrapolation of conclusions. Besides, the survey is self-reported, which can introduce a social desirability bias or recall bias. The absence of qualitative data triangulation constrains the richness of interpretation of motivations, barriers, and context factors affecting the decisions as well.

Interpretation and future research

Since the sample size is relatively small, the possibility of using qualitative interviews in the future should be considered to elaborate on more subtle perceptions about the real attitude, motivation, and possible patterns of resistance linked with decision-making processes. The approach would help reveal context-specific obstacles or facilitating factors that might remain hidden when using quantitative data only.

Generalizability

Due to the demographic makeup and the size of the sample, the external validity of findings is minimal. These results can be said to represent the views and limitations of a specific subgroup, that is, rural, male physicians, as opposed to the German medical community at large. Although it reflects the tendencies in a specific environment, it should be proven in larger-scale, more encompassing research to be applicable on a wider scale.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates that management tools, together with strategic investment decisions, maintain their essential position within private medical practice operations. The survey results demonstrate that process optimization and efficiency, together with employee satisfaction, represent the most significant management tools, but marketing and benchmarking prove less important. The primary determinants of investment choices in medical practices consist of medical necessities combined with economic efficiency and legal requirements, which exceed training needs. The study results demonstrate that medical practices must establish operational efficiency to achieve financial stability to deliver superior patient care. Two significant obstacles prevent widespread adoption of structured management systems because they include financial barriers, together with organizational resistance to change.

This is because, although the results were obtained in smaller private practices, they are generalizable and can be applied to indicate the same healthcare environment in other geographical locations. Medical practices will benefit from barrier removals, which can be achieved through training programs and financial backing alongside knowledge-sharing programs to boost their decision-making capabilities.

To make enhanced decision-making on investment and foster the implementation of new technologies, small practices are to be supported with the help of incentive schemes. These can be government subsidies of the initial technology expenses, tax benefits of the digitalization, or training programs supported by the vendors, which can lessen the adoption burden. Policymakers, professional associations, and the private industry can work together to develop sustainable models that would allow small practices to make the needed innovations without affecting their economic health.

In the future, more research needs to examine how new technology, along with developing healthcare rules, affects business choices and operational planning in independent medical facilities. Comparative analysis between practices of different sizes and geography could reveal additional insights that are generalized. Private practitioners who improve their methods of resource distribution and operational efficiency will achieve stronger financial stability and better patient care results.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Data Sharing Statement: Available at https://jhmhp.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jhmhp-25-35/dss

Peer Review File: Available at https://jhmhp.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jhmhp-25-35/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jhmhp.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jhmhp-25-35/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. The study was approved by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the FSEV UK (Approval No. 216-65/2025), and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Dzau VJ, McClellan MB, McGinnis JM, et al. Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative. JAMA 2017;317:1461-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Al-Jaroodi J, Mohamed N, Abukhousa E. Health 4.0: On the Way to Realizing the Healthcare of the Future. IEEE Access 2020;8:211189-210.
3. Feinglass J, Salmon JW. The use of medical management information systems to increase the clinical productivity of physicians. In The corporate transformation of health care. Routledge; 2021:139-61.
4. Ginter PM, Duncan WJ, Swayne LE. The strategic management of health care organizations. 8th ed. 2018.
5. Arah OA, Klazinga NS, Delnoij DM, et al. Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: a quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement. Int J Qual Health Care 2003;15:377-98. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Organization WH. Quality assurance of pharmaceuticals: a compendium of guidelines and related materials, Volume 1. Good practices and related regulatory guidance. World Health Organization; 2024.
7. Sieja A, Markley K, Pell J, et al. Optimization Sprints: Improving Clinician Satisfaction and Teamwork by Rapidly Reducing Electronic Health Record Burden. Mayo Clin Proc 2019;94:793-802. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Nandy B. Hospital Investment Decisions and Prioritization of Clinical Programs. Cureus 2025;17:e79998. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Cleverley WO, Cleverley JO, Parks AV. Essentials of health care finance. 8th ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2023.
10. Alowais SA, Alghamdi SS, Alsuhebany N, et al. Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC Med Educ 2023;23:689. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Mackey TK, Kuo TT, Gummadi B, et al. 'Fit-for-purpose?' - challenges and opportunities for applications of blockchain technology in the future of healthcare. BMC Med 2019;17:68. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Getzen TE, Kobernick MS. Health economics and financing. 6th ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2022.
13. Dranove D, Burns LR. Big Med: megaproviders and the high cost of health care in America. University of Chicago Press; 2022.
14. Eze-Ajoku E. Exploring Organizational Change In Healthcare: Understanding The Innovation Decision Process of Adopters. Johns Hopkins University; 2019.
15. Marwaha JS, Landman AB, Brat GA, et al. Deploying digital health tools within large, complex health systems: key considerations for adoption and implementation. NPJ Digit Med 2022;5:13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Fischer F, Lange K, Klose K, et al. Barriers and Strategies in Guideline Implementation-A Scoping Review. Healthcare (Basel) 2016;4:36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Cresswell K, Sheikh A, Franklin BD, et al. Interorganizational Knowledge Sharing to Establish Digital Health Learning Ecosystems: Qualitative Evaluation of a National Digital Health Transformation Program in England. J Med Internet Res 2021;23:e23372. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Lee GY. Reimbursement of acupuncture treatment in statutory health insurance scheme: A cross-country comparison of Germany and South Korea. Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg; 2023.
19. Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev 2011;89:46-52, 54, 56-61 passim.
20. Nandan Prasad A. Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management. Introduction to Data Governance for Machine Learning Systems: Fundamental Principles, Critical Practices, and Future Trends. Springer; 2024:485-624.
21. Gerlinger T. Health policy in Germany. Research Handbook on Health Care Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2024:516-68.
22. Atwood D, Larose P, Uttley R. Strategies for success in purchasing medical technology. Biomed Instrum Technol 2015;49:93-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Edlin R, Hall P, Wallner K, et al. Sharing risk between payer and provider by leasing health technologies: an affordable and effective reimbursement strategy for innovative technologies? Value Health 2014;17:438-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Kucan G, Tan T, Grossmann D, et al. Sustainable future-proof healthcare facilities: modular and adaptable design approach 2024;40:04024053.
25. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, et al. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Ewert B. Economization and marketization in the German healthcare system: How do users respond? 2009;5:21-44.
27. Petretto DR, Carrogu GP, Gaviano L, et al. Telemedicine, e-Health, and Digital Health Equity: A Scoping Review. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 2024;20:e17450179279732. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Lu W. Examining the effects of empathy and dialogic risk communication in physicians' text-based messages on patient satisfaction and compliance in Chinese online medical consultations. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2024.
29. Pingili R. How Workflow Optimization Improves Patient Care. International Journal of Research in Computer Applications and Information Technology 2024;7:1192-206. (IJRCAIT).
30. Walter U. Qualitätsmanagement und -entwicklung in der Primärprävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Stand, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 2022;65:310-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Babka S. Social Media in Human Resources. In: Social Media for Leaders. Springer, Wiesbaden 2023:105-16.
32. Mehraeen E. Telemedicine technologies and applications in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2023;29:14604582231167431. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. Gerke S, Minssen T, Cohen G. Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Elsevier 2020:295-336.
34. Peters C, Blohm I. Leimeister JMJJomis. Anatomy of successful business models for complex services: Insights from the telemedicine field. Journal of Management Information Systems 2015;32:75-104.
35. Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, et al. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015;98:66-83.
36. Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, et al. Medical 4.0 technologies for healthcare: Features, capabilities, and applications. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems 2022;2:12-30.
37. Tabish S, Syed N. Research. Securing the Future: A Systems Approach to Continuous Improvement in Health Care by Applying the Theory of Constraints. Medicine Business 2015;438:2674-95.
38. Child J. Organization: contemporary principles and practice. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
39. Okello DR, Gilson L. Exploring the influence of trust relationships on motivation in the health sector: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health 2015;13:16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Olayiwola RK, Tuomi V, Strid J, et al. Impact of Total quality management on cleaning companies in Finland: A Focus on organisational performance and customer satisfaction. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2024;10:100139.
41. Cassiani SHdB. Competencies for training advanced practice nurses in primary health care. Acta Paul Enferm 2018;31:572-84.
42. Ente C, Ukpe M. Essentials for Quality and Safety Improvement in Health Care. Springer; 2022.
43. Foster K, Penninti P, Shang J, et al. Leveraging big data to balance new key performance indicators in emergency physician management networks. Production and Operations Management 2018;27:1795-815.
44. Agarwal R, Dugas M, Gao G, et al. Emerging technologies and analytics for a new era of value-centered marketing in healthcare. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2020;48:9-23.
45. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Medical Marketing in the United States, 1997-2016. JAMA 2019;321:80-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
46. Özyeşil M, Tembelo H, Sur H. Examining the Financial Literacy of Healthcare Professionals: A Research on a Provincial Health Directorate. Florence Nightingale J Nurs 2024;32:244-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
47. Guze PA. Using Technology to Meet the Challenges of Medical Education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2015;126:260-70.
48. Vallo Hult H, Hansson A, Gellerstedt M. Digitalization and Physician Learning: Individual Practice, Organizational Context, and Social Norm. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2020;40:220-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
49. Pakos G, Mpogiatzidis P. Financial Literacy Among Healthcare Providers: A Systematic Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2025;18:29.
50. Sharma S, Arora K. Evaluation of a training program for life skills education and financial literacy to community health workers in India: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21:46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
51. Nyberg AJ, Reilly G, Cragun OR. A strategic recruiting system model for integrating human capital resources to solve strategic organizational challenges. 1st ed. Essentials of Employee Recruitment: Routledge; 2024:56-76.
52. Peña-Casas R, Ghailani DJDL. The impact of digitalisation on job quality in the electricity, hospital and public administrations sectors in eight EU countries. European Social Observatory; 2023;3.
53. Farsi D. Social Media and Health Care, Part I: Literature Review of Social Media Use by Health Care Providers. J Med Internet Res 2021;23:e23205. [Crossref] [PubMed]
54. Philip L, Williams F. Remote rural home based businesses and digital inequalities: Understanding needs and expectations in a digitally underserved community. Journal of Rural Studies 2018;68:306-18.
55. Pajtinkova Bartakova G, Gubiniova K, Brtkova J, et al. Actual trends in the recruitment process at small and medium-sized enterprises with the use of social networking. Economic Annals-XXI 2017;164:80-4.
56. Gilch PM, Sieweke J. Recruiting digital talent: The strategic role of recruitment in organisations’ digital transformation. German Journal of Human Resource Management Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 2021;35:53-82.
57. Hanft K. Lean hospitals: improving quality, patient safety, and employee engagement 2nd edition. HERD 2013;7:124-5.
58. Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, et al. The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7:e015141. [Crossref] [PubMed]
59. Mwanswila MJ, Mollel HA, Mushi LD. Outcome evaluation of technical strategies on reduction of patient waiting time in the outpatient department at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre-Northern Tanzania. BMC Health Serv Res 2024;24:785. [Crossref] [PubMed]