Facilitating Organizational Mergers: Amalgamation of Community Care Access Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) in Ontario necessitated the re-organization of Community Care Access Centres (CCACs). The achievement of LHIN objectives was contingent upon the organizations responsible for home and long-term care placement being aligned within the LHIN geographic boundaries. This re-alignment required 42 provincial organizations to re-structure, integrate and reduce to 14. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM: This project was focused on the amalgamation of two CCACs in the Waterloo Wellington LHIN. Both were distinctly different due to their organizational evolution, the composition of the region and leadership approach. The different organizational cultures, if not managed properly, could result in a derailing of several current projects that were underway and were also key to the overall health system transformation agenda. A literature search provided a plethora of critiques of organizational change approaches and practical suggestions. Of particular relevance was a report to the Royal Commission on Health Care in 2002 that authenticates the dismal success in health care to meet change objectives. The project included a joint planning day for the leadership teams of the two organizations followed by an Organizational Readiness Assessment conducted by the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation (CCHSA). RESULTS: Both activities brought the leadership and staff of Waterloo and Wellington together, started the integration process and solicited staff participation. A follow-up survey of the leadership teams revealed the effectiveness of the project in advancing integration between the two organizations and recognizing organizational cultural differences. The CCHSA Organizational Readiness Assessment process was viewed as an effective means for advancing the integration of the two organizations, particularly as it relates to allowing the staff groups to define for themselves the benefits of the merger. LESSONS AND MESSAGES: The lack of hard evidence on the benefits of a merger could have been problematic in terms of resistance to change if the CCHSA process had not been used. The readiness assessment report provided 49 recommendations that served as baseline information needed for the design of a change strategy that is anchored in knowledge of variation in organizational culture, practice, communications, client service and leadership style.
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 | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".