MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410195469 · doi:10.5463/thesis.1087

Haute Culture

2025· dissertation· en· W4410195469 sur OpenAlexaff
Romana Fattimah Malik

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient Safety and Medication Errors
Établissements canadiensAthena Sustainable Materials Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This thesis used a socio-psychological perspective to explore the concept of open culture and how entrenched work patterns influence it. Chapter 1 outlines the current state of organisational culture studies in healthcare and introduces key concepts: organisational culture, patient safety culture, leadership, speaking up, and the healthcare context. The research is guided by five core questions across three parts: Part 1 – What an open culture entails Research question 1: What do we really assess with organisational culture tools in healthcare? Chapter 2 presents a systematic umbrella review of 127 instruments used to assess culture in healthcare. Most tools are quantitative and focus on tangible dimensions such as leadership, communication, and teamwork. However, they often fail to uncover deeper cultural layers—such as trust, psychological safety, power dynamics, and moral values. The chapter concludes that new tools are needed to better identify intangible aspects and diagnose non-open cultures more effectively. Research question 2: What is open culture? What are its elements, and how does it relate to patient safety culture? Chapter 3 describes a modified Delphi study conducted to define the elements of an open culture in hospitals. The resulting framework includes 37 elements—both tangible (e.g. leadership, communication systems, organisational processes) and intangible (e.g. psychological safety, trust, moral values, power). The study shows that open culture extends beyond the scope of patient safety: open culture is a transparent and inclusive organisational environment where employees and leaders adopt an open mindset and attitude. It is defined by transparent structures and processes that engage patients, fostering trust, respect, and appreciation for diverse perspectives, with psychological safety at its core. Leaders serve as supportive role models, maintaining high moral and ethical standards, avoiding abuse of power, blame, or shame, thereby promoting diversity, open communication and continuous training and development. Part 2 – How traditional hierarchies undermine open culture and what leadership is needed Research question 3: Which leadership style is needed in the evolving healthcare landscape? Chapter 4 examines stakeholder perspectives on the “Physicians in the Lead” (PIL) strategy, a leadership model rooted in value-based care. Although PIL aims to improve efficiency, it often reinforces a biomedical focus and excludes psychosocial perspectives. Stakeholders report that PIL limits openness and suggest a “team in the lead” model that includes broader input—from nurses, patients, and others. They also recommend extramural coordination centres to support patients holistically, beyond the hospital walls. Part 3 – Elements for successful implementation of open culture Research question 4: What matters most to stakeholders, including patients, during transitions of care? Chapter 5 uses a mixed-methods approach—interviews and surveys—to explore transitions of care. The findings reveal low satisfaction and confusion during handovers. Key improvements include preparing patients earlier, boosting leadership skills among patients and families, and establishing clear interprofessional roles during transitions. Research question 5: Which cultural elements support interprofessional learning and encourage speaking up? Chapter 6 offers insights from a qualitative study in a Dutch hospital. Six cultural elements were identified that influence interprofessional speak-up behaviour: shared vision, functional hierarchy, strong interpersonal relationships, clarity about when to speak up, open-mindedness, and embedding cultural values in learning contexts. Hierarchy itself was not a barrier—when marked by respect, it could support psychological safety. Transformational and humble leadership were seen as crucial enablers. Final reflections Chapter 7 synthesises the findings, concluding that current culture tools fail to detect hidden dynamics like fear or shame. The thesis advocates for new approaches to identify and shift from non-open to open cultures. Strategies such as shared governance, shared leadership, interprofessional learning, and inclusive decision-making are recommended. The ADKAR model is presented as a practical tool for implementation.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,060
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,201

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,005
Communication savante0,0110,006
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0600,013

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,491
Écart entre enseignants0,426 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetPatient Safety and Medication Errors→Travaux en français237 207→