The process of implementing a new working method - a project towards change in a Swedish psychiatric clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of evidence-based methods in hospital settings is difficult and complex. The aim of the present study was to highlight the implementation process concerning a new working method, i.e. a new assessment tool, based on the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF), among psychiatric nursing staff on five participating wards at a Swedish county hospital. Descriptive, qualitative data were collected through focus group interviews pre- and post-implementation. Data were analysed using directed content analysis, guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). The results revealed that just one of the five participating wards met the criteria for a successful implementation process. The results confirm previous studies showing the difficulty of implementation. Although participants agreed with the intention of the model, they were reluctant to apply it in practice. The implementation process seemed to be influenced by factors such as: time pressure; heavy workload; stress; lack of routines in using the tool; lack of nursing staff; as well as cultural characteristics and resistance to change.
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 | 0.110 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".