Teaching hospital performance: Towards a community of shared values?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the performance dimensions of Italian teaching hospitals (THs) by considering the multiple constituent model approach, using measures that are subjective and based on individual ideals and preferences. Our research replicates a study of a French TH and deepens it by adjusting it to the context of an Italian TH. The purposes of this research were as follows: to identify emerging views on the performance of teaching hospitals and to analyze how these views vary among hospital stakeholders. We conducted an in-depth case study of a TH using a quantitative survey method. The survey uses a questionnaire based on Parsons' social system action theory, which embraces the major models of organizational performance and covers three groups of internal stakeholders: physicians, caregivers and administrative staff. The questionnaires were distributed between April and September 2011. The results confirm that hospital performance is multifaceted and includes the dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness and quality of care, as well as organizational and human features. There is a high degree of consensus among all observed stakeholder groups about these values, and a shared view of performance is emerging. Our research provides useful information for defining management priorities to improve the performance of THs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".