The Behavioural Outcomes of Quality Improvement Teams: The Role of Team Success and Team Identification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between hospital quality improvement (QI) team success and changes in empowerment, 'organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour' (OCB) and job behaviour related to QI. Data were collected from administrative staff, healthcare professionals and support staff from four community hospitals. The study involved a field investigation with two data collection points. Structured questionnaires and interviews with hospital management were used to collect data on the study variables. High scores were observed for organizational commitment, OCB and job behaviour related to QI when individuals identified with teams that were successful. Low scores were observed when individuals identified with teams that were unsuccessful. Empowerment was positively related to job behaviour associated with QI. It is concluded that participation on QI teams can lead to organizational learning, resulting in the inculcation of positive 'extra-role' and 'in-role' job behaviour.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it