Project Management Office in Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the contribution of a Transition Support Office (TSO) in a health care center in Canada to supporting changes in practice based on evidence and organizational performance in the early phase of a major organizational change. Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 11 members of the TSO and 13 managers and clinicians from an ambulatory sector in the organization who received support from the TSO. The main themes addressed in the interviews were the description of the TSO, the context of implementation, and the impact. Using the Competing Value Framework by Quinn and Rohrbaugh [Public Product Rev. 1981;5(2):122-140], results revealed that the TSO is a source of expertise that facilitates innovation and implementation of change. It provides material support and human expertise for evidence-based projects. As a single organizational entity responsible for managing change, it gives a sense of cohesiveness. It also facilitates communication among human resources of the entire organization. The TSO is seen as an expertise provider that promotes competency development, training, and evidence-based practices. The impact of a TSO on change in practices and organizational performance in a health care system is discussed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".