The Relationship Between Organizational Culture and Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The context in which critical care providers work has been shown to be associated with adherence to recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Consideration of contextual factors such as organizational culture may therefore be important when implementing guidelines. Organizational culture has been defined simply as "how things are around here" and encompasses leadership, communication, teamwork, conflict resolution, and other domains. This narrative review highlights the results of recent quantitative and qualitative studies, including studies on adherence to nutrition guidelines in the critical care setting, which demonstrate that elements of organizational culture, such as leadership support, interprofessional collaboration, and shared beliefs about the utility of guidelines, influence adherence to guideline recommendations. Outside nutrition therapy, there is emerging evidence that strategies focusing on organizational change (eg, revision of professional roles, interdisciplinary teams, integrated care delivery, computer systems, and continuous quality improvement) can favorably influence professional performance and patient outcomes. Consequently, future interventions aimed at implementing nutrition guidelines should aim to measure and take into account organizational culture, in addition to considering the characteristics of the patient, provider, and guideline. Further high quality, multimethod studies are required to improve our understanding of how culture influences guideline implementation, and which organizational change strategies might be most effective in optimizing nutrition therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".