Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: a qualitative case study
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
OBJECTIVES: To describe and evaluate the priority-setting element of a hospital's strategic planning process. METHODS: Qualitative case study and evaluation against the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness' of a strategic planning process at a large urban university-affiliated hospital. RESULTS: The hospital's strategic planning process met the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness' in large part. Specifically: the hospital based its decisions on reasons (both information and criteria) that the participants felt were relevant to the hospital; the number and type of participants were very extensive; the process, decisions and reasons were well communicated throughout the organization, using multiple communication vehicles; and the process included an ethical framework linked to an effort to evaluate and improve the process. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by giving participants more time to absorb the information relevant to priority-setting decisions, more time to take difficult decisions and some means to appeal or revise decisions. CONCLUSION: A case study linked to an evaluation using 'accountability for reasonableness' can serve to improve priority-setting in the context of hospital strategic planning.
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 | 0.046 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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