MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559042958 · doi:10.1177/0844562116680715

Strategic Workforce Planning for Health Human Resources

2016· article· en· W2559042958 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrea Baumann, Mary Crea‐Arsenio, Noori Akhtar‐Danesh, Bonnie Fleming‐Carroll, Mabel Hunsberger, Margaret Keatings, Michael D. Elfassy, Sarah Kratina

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceWorkforce planningHuman resourcesNursingObservational studyHealth careHealth human resourcesSpecialtyBusinessStrategic human resource planningWorkforce developmentMedicineStrategic planningFamily medicineMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Health-care organizations provide services in a challenging environment, making the introduction of health human resources initiatives especially critical for safe patient care. Purpose To demonstrate how one specialty hospital in Ontario, Canada, leveraged an employment policy to stabilize its nursing workforce over a six-year period (2007 to 2012). Methods An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in which administrative data were analyzed to compare full-time status and retention of new nurses prepolicy and during the policy. The Professionalism and Environmental Factors in the Workplace Questionnaire® was used to compare new nurses hired into the study hospital with new nurses hired in other health-care settings. Results There was a significant increase in full-time employment and a decrease in part-time employment in the study hospital nursing workforce. On average, 26% of prepolicy new hires left the study hospital within one year of employment compared to 5% of new hires during policy implementation. The hospital nurses scored significantly higher than nurses employed in other health-care settings on 5 out of 13 subscales of professionalism. Conclusions Decision makers can use these findings to develop comprehensive health human resources guidelines and mechanisms that support strategic workforce planning to sustain and strengthen the health-care system.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.152 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207