An empirically based model for knowledge management in health care organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge management (KM) encompasses strategies, processes, and practices that allow an organization to capture, share, store, access, and use knowledge. Ideal KM combines different sources of knowledge to support innovation and improve performance. PURPOSES: Despite the importance of KM in health care organizations (HCOs), there has been very little empirical research to describe KM in this context. This study explores KM in HCOs, focusing on the status of current intraorganizational KM. The intention is to provide insight for future studies and model development for effective KM implementation in HCOs. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A qualitative methods approach was used to create an empirically based model of KM in HCOs. Methods included (a) qualitative interviews (n = 24) with senior leadership to identify types of knowledge important in these roles plus current information-seeking behaviors/needs and (b) in-depth case study with leaders in new executive positions (n = 2). The data were collected from 10 HCOs. Our empirically based model for KM was assessed for face and content validity. FINDINGS: The findings highlight the paucity of formal KM in our sample HCOs. Organizational culture, leadership, and resources are instrumental in supporting KM processes. An executive's knowledge needs are extensive, but knowledge assets are often limited or difficult to acquire as much of the available information is not in a usable format. We propose an empirically based model for KM to highlight the importance of context (internal and external), and knowledge seeking, synthesis, sharing, and organization. Participants who reviewed the model supported its basic components and processes, and potential for incorporating KM into organizational processes. DISCUSSION: Our results articulate ways to improve KM, increase organizational learning, and support evidence-informed decision-making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This research has implications for how to better integrate evidence and knowledge into organizations while considering context and the role of organizational processes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".