Conflict management and job satisfaction in paediatric hospitals in Greece
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the major causes of conflict and to identify choices of strategy in handling conflicts. BACKGROUND: Conflict is inherent to hospitals as in all complex organizations, and health personnel deal with internal and external conflicts daily. METHODS: The sample consisted of 286 participants. A five-part questionnaire, specific for conflicts in hospitals, was administered to health personnel. RESULTS: Of the participants 37% were physicians and 63% were nurses and nursing assistants. As far as choice of strategy in conflict management is concerned, avoidance was found to be the most frequent mode chosen while accommodation was the least frequent mode. Organizational problems were the main issue creating conflicts since 52% of nurses and 45% of physicians agreed that receiving direction from more than one manager may lead to conflicts (P=0.02). Educational differences and communication gaps were reported as another cause of conflicts, with nurses supporting this statement more than the other groups (P=0.006). CONCLUSION: To become effective in conflict management nurses and physicians must understand causes and strategies in handling conflicts. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Major changes are needed regarding human resource management, work incentives and dynamics of teamwork in order to improve working conditions in Greek public hospitals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it