Accreditation: a tool for organizational change in 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
Examines the dynamics of change that operated following preparations for accreditation. The study was conducted from May 1995 to October 2001 in a university hospital center in France after the introduction in 1996 of mandatory accreditation. An embedded explanatory case study sought to explore the organizational changes: a theoretical framework for analyzing change was developed; semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires addressed to the hospital's professionals were used and documents were collected; and qualitative and quantitative analyses were carried out. Professionals from clinical and medico-technical departments participated most. Preparations for accreditation provided an opportunity to reflect non-hierarchically on the treatment of patients and on the hospital's operational modalities by creating a locus for exchanges and collegial decision making. These preparations also led to giving greater consideration to results of exit surveys and to committing procedures to paper, and were a key opportunity for introducing a continuous quality program.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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