MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890094166 · doi:10.5430/jha.v7n5p56

Environmental responsibility in hospital care: Findings from a qualitative study

2018· article· en· W2890094166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hanna Kallio, Anna‐Maija Pietilä, Martin Johnson, Mari Kangasniemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)BusinessQualitative researchPublic relationsSocial responsibilityHealth careNursingEnvironmental resource managementMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify the key elements of environmental responsibility in hospital care and the stakeholders involved.Background: Hospital care causes a significant global environmental burden, which threatens human health and wellbeing. Environmental responsibility has been identified as an essential part of patient care with regard to health promotion and wellbeing of humans, but it has often been regarded as a secondary issue in hospitals. In addition, the lack of organizational structures and administrative as well as managerial support inhibit the promotion of environmental responsibility in hospitals.Methods: We used a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Our data was drawn from the environmental managers of five Finnish university hospitals and documents on their environmental programs.Results: We found that the aim of environmental responsibility in hospital care was to avoid unnecessary emissions, and that it was guided by the authorities and by ethical values. It included targets for sustainable use of material, electricity, water and transport. Environmental responsibility required the involvement of several stakeholders, including administrators, environmental manager, immediate leaders, environmental support people, staff and patients. Implementation of environmental responsibility was promoted by collaboration, education, diverse initiatives to motivate staff, and continuously developing practices.Conclusions: Environmental responsibility extended throughout a hospital organization. Staff was in a key position to implement it, but they needed versatile organizational support, including education, clear procedures, defined roles, and a motivational culture and facilities.Implications for hospital management: This study yields new knowledge that will provide information for the development of organisational structures with respect to environmental responsibility in hospital care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207