MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466764632 · doi:10.1177/0972063416651598

Effects of Hospital Restructuring and Downsizing on Nursing Staff

2016· article· en· W2466764632 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald J. Burke, Eddy S. Ng, Jacob Wolpin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityYork University
FundersKaiser Permanente
KeywordsRestructuringNursingHealth careBusinessMedicineWork (physics)Economic growthEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The healthcare system underwent considerable restructuring and downsizing in the early to mid-1990s as governments cut costs to reduce their budget deficits. Studies of the effects of these efforts on nursing staff and hospital functioning generally reported negative impacts. Healthcare restructuring and hospital downsizing was again being implemented as governments struggled to once again reduce deficits. The present study examines the relationship of union support during hospital restructuring initiatives with a range of individual and unit/hospital outcomes in a sample of nursing staff working in healthcare settings (hospitals) undergoing significant restructuring and downsizing. Data were collected from 289 nursing staff in California hospitals. Nurses reported a relatively large number of restructuring and downsizing initiatives during the preceding year. Levels of union support had a significant relationship with hospital functioning, but not with nursing staff work and well-being outcomes. Although union support has not shown many benefits for nursing staff during hospital restructuring and downsizing given their focus on adherence to collective agreements, nursing unions can play a larger role here. The present study adds to our understanding of the potential benefits of union support during the current hospital restructuring and downsizing, and highlights the role of union leadership and management.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health ManagementSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207