Strategic Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation Processes in Hospital Systems: A Survey From Iran
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
BACKGROUND & AIM: Strategic planning has been presented as an important management practice. However, evidence of its deployment in healthcare systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. This study investigated the strategic management process in Iranian hospitals. METHODS: The present study was accomplished in 24 teaching hospitals in Tehran, Iran from September 2012 to March 2013. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire including 130 items. This questionnaire measured the situation of formulation, implementation, and evaluation of strategic plan as well as the requirements, facilitators, and its benefits in the studied hospitals. RESULTS: All the investigated hospitals had a strategic plan. The obtained percentages for the items "the rate of the compliance to requirements" and "the quantity of planning facilitators" (68.75%), attention to the stakeholder participation in the planning (55.74%), attention to the planning components (62.22%), the status of evaluating strategic plan (59.94%) and the benefits of strategic planning for hospitals (65.15%) were in the medium limit. However, the status of implementation of the strategic plan (53.71%) was found to be weak. Significant statistical correlations were observed between the incentive for developing strategic plan and status of evaluating phase (P=0.04), and between status of implementation phase and having a documented strategic plan (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: According to the results, it seems that absence of appropriate internal incentive for formulating and implementing strategies led more hospitals to start formulation strategic planning in accordance with the legal requirements of Ministry of Health. Consequently, even though all the investigated hospital had the documented strategic plan, the plan has not been implemented efficiently and valid evaluation of results is yet to be achieved.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it