MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418825866 · doi:10.1108/lhs-12-2015-0042

Can complexity science inform physician leadership development?

2016· article· en· W2418825866 on OpenAlex
Colleen Grady

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in health services · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careInterviewLeadership developmentComplexity scienceLimitingReimbursementPsychologyNursingMedicinePublic relationsManagement scienceSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe research that examined physician leadership development using complexity science principles. Design/methodology/approach Intensive interviewing of 21 participants and document review provided data regarding physician leadership development in health-care organizations using five principles of complexity science (connectivity, interdependence, feedback, exploration-of-the-space-of-possibilities and co-evolution), which were grouped in three areas of inquiry (relationships between agents, patterns of behaviour and enabling functions). Findings Physician leaders are viewed as critical in the transformation of healthcare and in improving patient outcomes, and yet significant challenges exist that limit their development. Leadership in health care continues to be associated with traditional, linear models, which are incongruent with the behaviour of a complex system, such as health care. Physician leadership development remains a low priority for most health-care organizations, although physicians admit to being limited in their capacity to lead. This research was based on five principles of complexity science and used grounded theory methodology to understand how the behaviours of a complex system can provide data regarding leadership development for physicians. The study demonstrated that there is a strong association between physician leadership and patient outcomes and that organizations play a primary role in supporting the development of physician leaders. Findings indicate that a physician's relationship with their patient and their capacity for innovation can be extended as catalytic behaviours in a complex system. The findings also identified limiting factors that impact physicians who choose to lead, such as reimbursement models that do not place value on leadership and medical education that provides minimal opportunity for leadership skill development. Practical Implications This research provides practical applications for physician leadership development and emphasizes that it is incumbent upon physicians and organizations to focus attention on this to achieve improved patient and organizational outcomes. Originality/value This study pairing complexity science and physician leadership represents a unique way to view the development of physician leaders within the context of the complex system that is health care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.852
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.242 · 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