MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109874962 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1317

A New Quality Compass: Hospital Boards’ Increased Role Under The Affordable Care Act

2011· article· en· W2109874962 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Belmont, Claire Cowart Haltom, Douglas A. Hastings, Robert G. Homchick, Lewis Morris, Julie K. Taitsman, Brian M. Peters, Robin Locke Nagele, Beth Schermer, Kathryn C Peisert

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBusinessQuality (philosophy)Competence (human resources)Ambulatory careHealth insuranceNursingPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActMedical emergencyMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 promotes a clinically integrated, systems-based approach to health care. This means coordinating a patient's care over time and across all conditions, diseases, providers, and care settings. The aim is to achieve optimal results in terms of the overall quality of care as well as its efficiency, cost, safety, and timeliness. Hospital boards, which are legally accountable for the quality of the care their institutions provide, need to develop and implement effective quality oversight processes to achieve these objectives. Boards will have to focus less on the competence of individual providers and more on the functioning of the entire system of inpatient and outpatient care. We discuss the increased role of the boards in a systems-based approach to quality, and what steps they can take to meet the quality mandates of the Affordable Care Act.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207