The strategies for an organizational self-assessment of diversity-inclusiveness of policy and practice in a hospital setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the data collected through anonymous semi-structured surveys with four clinical nurse managers and 70 female hospital service users of various minority backgrounds, this study examined how the reproductive health needs of minority women were addressed by healthcare services in the Ottawa Hospital. Participating minority women included non-white Canadian-born women, Aboriginal women, immigrant women, single mothers-by-choice, women with disabilities as well as lesbian and bisexual women in reproductive age. The results indicated that there is great room for improving inclusivity and equity in all aspects of hospital operations: institutional policies and practices, service planning, staff recruitment and training, as well as physical environment and health education materials. A considerable number of surveyed women reported that their cultural, social, linguistic, physical and mental needs were not satisfactory addressed, or understood and respected by hospital staff. The majority of women also indicated that the hospital ambiance and health education materials did not reflect their minority status or their ideas and experiences of health and maternity. The study findings provide an important ground-work for an organizational self-assessment of diversity-inclusiveness of hospital policies and practices of individual healthcare professionals. The assessment of these policies and practices is the first step toward the improvement of quality of service for minority women and building a healthier and more equitable working environment for hospital employees.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".