MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516141240 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0000000000000224

A Critical Qualitative Study of the Position of Middle Managers in Health Care Quality Improvement

2016· article· en· W2516141240 on OpenAlexaff
Katie N. Dainty, Douglas Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle managementQuality managementHealth careWork (physics)NursingPosition (finance)Quality (philosophy)EthnographyUnit (ring theory)Qualitative researchPsychologyBusinessPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, health care quality improvement (QI) has focused on the engagement of executive leadership and frontline staff as key factors for success. Little work has been done on understanding how mid-level unit/program managers perceive their role in QI and how capacity could be built at this level to increase success. We present ethnographic data on the experience of hospital middle managers to consider how the expectations and capacity of their current position might influence QI progress organizationally.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207