MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perfect Storm: Organizational Management of Patient Care Under Natural Disaster Conditions

2003· article· en· W2406398172 on OpenAlexaff
William Cass McCaughrin, Maria Mattammal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Healthcare Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural disasterEmergency managementFlooding (psychology)Work (physics)Control (management)Event (particle physics)BusinessQuality (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)Process managementComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing uncertainty is an essential attribute of organizational leadership and effectiveness. Uncertainty threatens optimal decision making by managers and, by extension, reduces the quality of patient care. Variation in the work flows of everyday patient caregiving reflects management's steps to control uncertainty, which include strategies for contending with potential disaster scenarios. Little exists in the literature that reveals how management's strategic response to controlling uncertainty in a real disaster event differs from strategies practiced in disaster simulations, with the goal of protecting patient care. Using organization theory, this article presents the application of uncertainty management to the catastrophic flooding of a major teaching hospital. A detailed description of management's strategies for patient rescue and evacuation is provided. Unique aspects of managing uncertainty stemming from a natural disaster are highlighted. Recommendations on organization responses to disasters that optimize patient care, safety, and continuity are offered to managers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Healthcare ManagementSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207