Clinical leaders at the forefront of change in health-care systems: advantages and issues. Lessons learned from the evaluation of the implementation of an integrated oncological services network
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
Based on lessons learned from the evaluation of the implementation of an integrated oncological services network in Québec, this paper discusses the following question: to what extent is strong clinical leadership a propitious means of transforming health-care systems, especially when the change leads to significant evolution in inter-professional and inter-organizational relations? Through a qualitative case study, we analysed the exercising of leadership by studying over time the clinical leaders' initiatives while trying to understand the sources of influence, the nature of the tactics adopted and their consequences for the degree of integration of health services. This study seems to show that clinical leadership is effective but limited. We conclude that a constellation of clinical, administrative and political leaders found at different levels of the health-care system offers more promise of positive change for the health-care system.
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 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it