Organizational transformation to a patient centric culture: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this case study is to identify areas of weakness in the patient‐centric organizational culture of Baylis Medical Company in Montreal, and to propose specific actions to address these deficiencies. Design/methodology/approach Following initial interviews with company management and observations of corporate environment, variations in organizational culture are measured using a company‐wide survey designed to evaluate customer satisfaction, accountability, empowerment, results focus and employee satisfaction. Survey data are analyzed across departments and experience levels. Findings Qualitative assessment of the company via interviews and observations revealed a lack of artifacts relating to organizational culture, no formal feedback channels from clients, and a diversity of corporate visions among management and employees. Survey analysis revealed lower organizational culture valuation among less experienced employees and non‐managerial workers. Specific areas of weakness include accountability, empowerment and results focus in non‐manufacturing employees. Research limitations/implications The qualitative assessment was limited to selected interviews. No visit was made to the Toronto office. No interviews or surveys were conducted with clients. No data are available to evaluate fluctuations in organizational culture over time. Practical implications Four alternative action plans are evaluated using specific decision criteria. The introduction of artifacts relating to the patient‐centric organizational culture is recommended in the short term. Long‐term recommendations include the development of client‐oriented key performance indicators for management and employee use, and a multi‐step training program describing the clinical importance of the company products. Originality/value This study proposes a novel model to evaluate the level of patient‐centricity in an organizational culture. Specific recommendations may apply across a variety of industries, but are especially applicable in health care delivery sectors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".