Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Leading Health Care Organizations Sue Dopson and Annabelle Mark (eds) Palgrave MacmiUan: Hampshire and New York 2003, HB 266 pp, AUD 95.00, ISBN 1-4039-0270-4I confess to having been ill-disposed towards this volume a few sentences into the preface. Here Keith Grint justified its publication by arguing that even though there have been over 12,000 books written about leadership, we do not really know if it makes any difference or how. This seemed at once indefensible (if true, a monstrous waste of scholarly and other effort that should not continue) and patently untrue (as the papers in the volume went on to demonstrate). Suppressing the urge to read no further, I went on to find this collection a good demonstration of the fact that we do know quite a lot about leading health care organisations.This is the third volume arising from the Third International Conference on Organisational Behaviour and health Care held at the Said Business School, University of Oxford, in 2002. The conference theme was leadership in health care and the 15 papers selected for this volume are organised into three sections reflecting areas of focus at the conference:- the nature of leadership in health care;- leading health care organisations; and- taking health care forward in the 21st Century.The section devoted to the nature of leadership in health care has five chapters covering medical leadership in primary health care networks (UK), 'cognitive sculpting' in nursing leadership development (UK), leading multi-disciplinary teams (USA), clinical governance through effective leadership (UK) and an ethnographic study of clinical leadership in an ICU (UK). One of the more interesting is Sheaff and colleagues' analysis of the tensions between managerial and professional leadership in UK primary health care networks. Such analyses serve to remind us what an anomalous industry primary care health is in some countries (the UK and Australia amongst them): one where private business professionals are providing, for profit, a publicly funded public good. Not surprisingly this throws up major challenges for management, quality and accountability. Wells and colleagues' paper on how to empower workers of differing social and professional standing in multi-disciplinary teams offers some important lessons for effective leadership in this greatly expanded facet of contemporary primary health care. And Carmel's ethnography of leadership in an ICU, which highlights the importance of leaders being able to manage uncertainty, has relevance well beyond the bounds of this narrow clinical setting.The section devoted to leading health care organisations has four chapters that address knowledge management and communities of practice (UK), inter-agency multi-disciplinary teams (USA), the conceptual and practical validity of contemporary constructions of 'organisational leadership' (Australia), and the application of Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis as a tool to support resource distribution decision-making (Canada). Bate and Robert's knowledge management paper picks up on the National Health Service's (NHS) explicit interest in drawing on private sector know-how to inform knowledge management in the NHS. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,195 | 0,139 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».