An Investigation on the Status of Implementation of Communications and Information Management System (MCI) in Khorasan Razavi Hospitals
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
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: The aim of this investigation is to determine the mean scores of the possibility of implementing the MCI standards in Khorasan Razavi hospitals, from the perspective of Managers, in order to provide a suitable model for evaluating and promoting the system. METHODS: This was a Research and method (R&D) and Survey Research method, which is of the type of Cross- Sectional, descriptive-analytic Studies conducted in two steps in hospitals of Khorasan Razavi from July to December 2014. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) in 2013/6/10. About the nature and purpose of the study was explained to the participants. Were used to apply functional assessment, based on Accreditation Model. In order to collect data, two questionnaires were used, all of which were taken from the standards of MCI. The reliability and validity of the questionnaires were approved by experts.Cronbach's alphas for the questionnaires were obtained to be (0.95, 0.86), respectively. In order to analyze information, statistical analyses, including one way ANOVA, and Independent sample t-test were used. RESULTS: The mean scores of the possibility of implementing the MCI standards in Khorasan Razavi hospitals, were (51.6 and 12.27), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to half (43.8%) of managers, the MCI standards are applicable in hospitals of Khorasan Razavi; however, their application requires greater efforts by the 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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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