Health care managers' views on and approaches to implementing models for improving care processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop a deeper understanding of health-care managers' views on and approaches to the implementation of models for improving care processes. BACKGROUND: In health care, there are difficulties in implementing models for improving care processes that have been decided on by upper management. Leadership approaches to this implementation can affect the outcome. METHOD: In-depth interviews with first- and second-line managers in Swedish hospitals were conducted and analysed using grounded theory. RESULTS: 'Coaching for participation' emerged as a central theme for managers in handling top-down initiated process development. The vertical approach in this coaching addresses how managers attempt to sustain unit integrity through adapting and translating orders from top management. The horizontal approach in the coaching refers to managers' strategies for motivating and engaging their employees in implementation work. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Implementation models for improving care processes require a coaching leadership built on close manager-employee interaction, mindfulness regarding the pace of change at the unit level, managers with the competence to share responsibility with their teams and engaged employees with the competence to share responsibility for improving the care processes, and organisational structures that support process-oriented work. Implications for nursing management are the importance of giving nurse managers knowledge of change management.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".