Business Process Reengineering in Healthcare: Literature Review on the Methodologies and Approaches
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
<p>As global spending on healthcare increases and service improvement is not adequately reflecting on resource consumption, many healthcare organizations therefore resolve to improving their services by implementing Business process reengineering (BPR). BPR is a business strategy adopted by so many healthcare organizations in order to efficiently and successfully manage their business using currently available technology. BPR has been a hot topic in Information Systems discipline and extensive research has been carried out in different settings with numerous methodologies and approaches. As a result of ever changing nature of BPR this paper intend to provide additional knowledge exploring the current level of development of BPR in healthcare. To achieve this, a total of 27 articles from Science Direct database, 15 from IEEE explore, 16 from Taylor &amp; Francis, 25 from SpringerLink and 8 from SAGE Hub database covering the period from 2005 to early 2014 were analyzed based on their setting and methodology. And finally the article concludes with suggestions for future research related to BPR in healthcare.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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