MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994125667

Identifying Strategies to Decrease Overtime, Absenteeism and Agency Use: Insights from Healthcare Leaders.

2015· article· en· W2994125667 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lianne Jeffs, Doris Grinspun, Tom Closson, Marie-Claude Mainville

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvertimeAbsenteeismWorkforceHealth careAgency (philosophy)Thematic analysisNursingQualitative researchBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Working overtime, absenteeism and agency use can negatively impact working environments, the health of staff and patient outcomes, and increase healthcare costs. The purpose of this study was to explore how healthcare leaders in Ontario hospitals implement and sustain best practices that advance workforce stability within their organization. METHODS: Qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 23 healthcare leaders from 16 hospital sites. Two main themes emerged: (1) enacting proactive human resource practices and (2) having strong, caring and strategic leaders that create learning and supportive work environments. A number of sub-themes identified were reported through narratives stratified according to size (small/large) and performance (low/high) of each site. CONCLUSION: Insights gained from this study may offer healthcare leaders strategies to maximize the nursing workforce and minimize overtime, absenteeism and agency use to ensure safe, efficient and quality healthcare.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207