Radical change in healthcare organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to examine: the content of radical change by mapping differences between two templates for organizing delivery of healthcare; the enabling and constraining mechanisms underlying major change from one template to another; and the processes implicated in change implementation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Longitudinal, qualitative case study design allowed the tracking, over a four-year period, of the transformation of healthcare service in a community from provider-centered, fragmented delivery to patient-centered, integrated delivery. The authors conducted 90 interviews at three intervals, observed meetings, and analyzed internal and external documents. Concepts on content, process and mechanisms were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Transition from one template to another involves radical change in structures/systems and underlying values. Mechanisms precipitating and enabling change include: powerful stakeholders' dissatisfaction with current template and commitment to a new one, willingness to resource the change, provision of credible leadership, and manipulation of incentive programs. Radical change is underlain by a series of micro change processes that involve emergent, non-linear dynamics, and that follow their own track with enabling and constraining mechanisms. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper describes a case of positive, successful change. Implications include importance of: attention to power dynamics, persistent leadership, elimination of boundaries between collaborating groups, and aligning incentives with desired practice changes; and attending to both variance and process in understanding healthcare change.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".