Reflections on a hospital information committee support project in a rural hospital in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This paper presents an overview of support offered to a hospital information committee by a Hospital Information Committee Support Project (HICSP) in a rural area of South Africa. A specific focus is on the support required at various stages of the project, which was underpinned by Change Theory: any change in practice should be an on-going, phased process (pre-contemplation, contemplation and action). Additionally, change must be seen as having some benefit. Methods: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods evaluation was conducted to determine whether the project had met its aims and to explore participants’ experiences. Quantitative data included: number of meetings held, number of workshops held to develop templates, number of templates developed and in use, and number of action plans developed and implemented. Qualitative data included participants` views of the HICSP. In relation to Change Theory, data was analysed to summarise the type of support required during various stages of the HICSP. Results: Quantitative data revealed that the aims of the HICSP were met. In accordance with Change Theory, support must be regularly provided and must be on-going over a relatively prolonged period of time. Qualitative data illustrated that, generally, the support given was considered to be appropriate and participants continued to collect, analyse, use and monitor data and information on completion of the HICSP. Discussion and conclusions: The need for the strategic use of data at a local level to inform decision making and action is unquestionable. The study demonstrates that in an isolated, rural area an information committee can, in accordance with the stages of Change Theory, be supported and empowered so that hospital and nursing managers can confidently use data in a way that is locally meaningful and responsive.
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 | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".