Regionalization of health services in Newfoundland and Labrador: perceptions of the planning, implementation and consequences of regional governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the context and key drivers for regionalization of one provincial health care system in Canada; to document the original expectations of regionalization on governance and the extent to which these expectations were met; to identify the perceived successes and weaknesses of the process; and to examine the key issues and concerns that warrant further consideration and action in the future. METHODS: Forty-five CEO/senior administrator or senior health department officials in the period 1993-2001 were invited to participate, of whom 35 were interviewed (67% of senior health officials and 85% of CEOs/senior administrators). RESULTS: For the most part, key informants felt that expectations of reform with respect to reduction in the number of boards and integration of services under each board's mandate did occur. However, ongoing financial restraint, failure to include the full range of health services under the regional board mandate (including physician and pharmaceutical services), uncertainty regarding the level of authority the regional boards had for decision-making, and unclear accountability mechanisms between the regional boards and the provincial Ministry of Health limited the extent to which broader expectations related to development of a population health focus, and improved continuity of care for individuals and families was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for policy-makers were identified in four main areas: alignment between health policy goals and the governance structure; clarification of authority and accountability relationships; clarification of roles and responsibilities among all key actors; and strengthening of mechanisms that support accountability.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".