Clinicians as novice facilitators: a SIMPLE case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to advance understanding about the facilitation process used in complex implementation projects, by describing the function of novice clinician facilitators, and the barriers and enablers they experience, while implementing a new model of care for managing hospital malnutrition. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with local facilitators ( n=7) involved in implementing The SIMPLE Approach (Systematised Interdisciplinary Malnutrition Pathway Implementation and Evaluation) in six hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Facilitator networks and training supported the clinicians acting as novice facilitators. FINDINGS: Key functions of the facilitator role were building relationships and trust; understanding the problem and stimulating change through data; negotiating and implementing the change; and measuring, sharing and reflecting on success. "Dedicated role, time and support" was identified as a theme encompassing the key barriers and enablers to successful facilitation. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: When implementing complex interventions within short project timelines, it is critical that novice clinician facilitators are given adequate and protected time within their role, and have access to regular support from peers and experienced facilitators. With these structures in place, facilitators can support iterative improvements through building trust and relationships, co-designing strategies with champions and teams and developing internal capacity for change. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This case study extends the knowledge about how facilitation works in action, the barriers faced by clinicians new to working in facilitator roles, and highlights the need for an adapt-to-fit approach for the facilitation process, as well as the innovation itself.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".