Organization of change agents during care process redesign in Swedish health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Swedish health care organizations (HCOs) are changing using management concepts such as Lean, in attempts of improving efficiency, quality of care and work environment. Since there are pre-conditional challenges for operative managers to engage in change, HCOs tend to assign supportive functions such as change agents (CAs) to facilitate change. Research on the use of CAs in HCOs is sparse, thus the aim of this study explores role assignments and conditions of formally appointed CAs contributing to care process redesign.Methods: A purposive sample of three Swedish hospitals initiating Lean-inspired care process redesign during 2010–2011 was done. In-depth interviews were held with fifty-one key functions during change. Focus group interviews were conducted with thirty-eight health care professionals. Data were analysed by content analysis.Results: Top managers’ goal was to have operative management responsible for change during care process redesign, with support from assigned CAs. Organizing of CAs varied concerning, e.g. their hierarchical positions, job descriptions and practices, and conditions to act as driving forces towards change. Being granted formal power, having earned legitimacy and credibility, clarity regarding roles and responsibilities in change; a good sense of timing and ability to build relationships and trust, were identified as beneficial for CAs to support change.Conclusions: Role assignment and organizing of CAs varies. A position closer to the operative levels, formalized and clarified responsibilities, earned legitimacy and timing support adaptation and alignment of planned change, such as Lean-inspired care process redesign.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".