Innovation in health service management: Adoption of project management offices to support major health care transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the characteristics that influence project management offices acceptance and adoption in healthcare sector. BACKGROUND: The creation of project management offices has been suggested as a promising avenue to promote successful organisational change and facilitate evidence-based practice. However, little is known about the characteristics that promote their initial adoption and acceptance in health care sector. This knowledge is important in the context where many organisations are considering implementing project management offices with nurse managers as leaders. METHODS: A descriptive multiple case study design was used. The unit of analysis was the project management offices. The study was conducted in three university-affiliated teaching hospitals in 2013-14 (Canada). Individual interviews (n = 34) were conducted with senior managers. RESULTS: Results reveal that project management offices dedicated to project and change management constitute an innovation and an added value that addresses tangible needs in the field. CONCLUSION: Project management offices are an innovation highly compatible with health care managers and their approach has parallels to the process of clinical problem solving and reasoning well-known to adopters. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: This knowledge is important in a context where many nurses hold various roles in project management offices, such as Director, project manager, clinical expert and knowledge broker.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".