Engaging Stakeholders to Co-design an Academic Practice Strategic Plan in an Integrated Health System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As key members of the executive team, nurse executives play an integral role in the planning process and operationalization of strategic imperatives to ensure the overall success of the organization. Nurse executives are leading organizations through transition periods that require transformational leadership. Leaders must design a shared vision and set strategic priorities; empower others to lead; ensure access to resources needed for safe care delivery; and inspire people to meet the demands of the future. Paramount to effective strategic planning and achievement of positive outcomes is a leadership team that engages key stakeholders in the strategic planning process. This article provides an overview of a recently integrated health system's strategic planning process that included the engagement of patients and caregivers. This can serve as a blueprint for others in their efforts to implement a systematic approach for enhancing collaborative academic practice in their organizations.
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 | 0.087 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".