The importance of healthcare managers’ organizational preconditions and support resources for their appraisal of planned change and its outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthcare managers are expected to lead and manage planned organizational change intended to improve healthcare process quality. However, their complex working conditions offer limited decision control, and healthcare managers often feel ill prepared and inadequately supported to perform their duties. Healthcare managers have previously described their need for organizational support, but we lack knowledge of the preconditions and resources that help managers implement planned change.Methods: This prospective cohort study examined healthcare managers at three Swedish hospitals implementing lean production and two Swedish hospitals implementing their own improvement model. Questionnaire data from 2012, 2103, and 2014 were used in following up. We used t-tests and a linear mixed model design in analysing the data.Results: Healthcare managers who perceived strong support from managers, employees, colleagues, and the organization and managers with the longest managerial experience had the least negative appraisal of change. Managers who perceived strong support from employees, management, and the organizational structure perceived higher levels of healthcare process quality.Conclusions: Long managerial experience and strong support from managers, employees, and the organization are important formanagers’ appraisal of, work on, and successful implementation of planned change. Top management must therefore ensure that the healthcare managers have sufficient managerial experience and support before they delegate to them the responsibility to implement planned change.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".