Organizational Learning Capacity and Health Literacy in Acute Care Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How healthcare organizations learn and use new knowledge is particularly important in acute care hospitals, where organizational knowledge directly impacts the health of users. Using the example of health literate best practices, this paper examines the factors that influence organizational learning capacity in acute care hospitals. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research contains five general domains which help to define the literature review: the intervention, the inner setting, the outer setting, the individuals involved and the implementation process. Argote & Miron-Spektor’s framework for analyzing organizational learning is used to understand how new knowledge is used in organizations. As well, the concept of organizational absorptive capacity is considered as it fits within the domains of the CFIR and it is a key construct in the understanding of organizational learning. Together, these three areas of thought help to develop a new conceptual framework that is focused on the factors influencing the learning capacity and uptake of best practices in acute care hospitals. This framework helps us to understand how best practices can be adopted by healthcare organizations. As the uptake of health literate best practices has the potential to improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare costs, the use of the framework has the potential to facilitate improved hospital performance as well as improve use of acute care health resources.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".