Administrative workplaces in healthcare: Designing an efficient and patient-focused environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents an “Evidence-Based Concept Program” for the administrative workplaces in healthcare. Several studies show that Swedish doctors and nurses use about half their working time on administrative work. Despite this, very little attention has been given to the design of administrative workplaces in healthcare. Although healthcare focuses on detailed functional planning of their clinical areas, administrative workplaces are typically designed very traditionally, supporting hierarchical and downpipe organisations. Consequently, they are not always supportive of today’s healthcare needs, which focus on teamwork around the involved and informed patient. This makes provision of healthcare less efficient and patient friendly. However, new technologies and new ways of working means that the conditions for administrative/office work have changed drastically in recent decades. It is therefore time to seek inspiration from other sectors of society so as to rethink healthcare design. Conclusive report findings indicate that a changed approach needs to be introduced to the design of administrative workspaces. Mapping exercises of existing conditions show low utilisation of non-care-related administrative workplaces. These workplaces can be made more efficient by organising the plan according to activity-based usage and thereby reducing the area needed. Included survey also indicate that the degree of utilisation of administrative workplaces close to patients is relatively high. The report concludes that patient-related administrative workplaces need to be developed further through adding new room types and number of functions. Unused space can be redistributed to care located closer to patients, as the need is greater and this will help promote work efficiency. However, the design of new and more activity-based administrative workplaces in healthcare relies heavily on the introduction of new portable and seamless information and communication technology (ICT)-systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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".