The state of public hospital governance and management in a South African hospital: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the operations and management of a public hospital in South Africa in the light of recent organizational reforms. Management of public hospitals in South Africa is often seen as fragmented, impacting on their operations. Management processes are dominated by hierarchy and poor communication and interaction. They are also poorly linked to patients’ needs and experiences. In this paper, we examine the operations and management of a district hospital in North West Province to ascertain the extent to which the nature of hierarchy, communication, and interaction in the management process (meetings, establishing guidelines and others) impact on the efficient and effective governance of the hospital, especially in the light of recent organizational reforms.Methods: A qualitative case study approach involving 15 in-depth interviews were conducted at three management levels. All interviews were conducted in English, and were digitally audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Management and organization of data were done with NVivo 10 software, while analyses were based on pattern-building and emerging themes.Results: By and large the hospital was constrained by hierarchical control and rule-following. While hierarchy and dysfunction still shape communication and interaction, there is some optimism with regards to strategic planning. Key features of hospital governance and its functionality, involving financial management or stewardship, strategic planning, performance management and appraisal, and clinical governance are emphasized.Conclusions: For effective public hospital governance in South Africa, management must be guided in practice by the key principles set out in the national policy on management of public hospitals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".