The strategic leadership of nursing directorates in the context of healthcare system reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec, the strategic leadership of nursing directorates remains poorly documented despite its importance for the performance of their organizations. Using three focus groups and 31 individual semistructured interviews, a qualitative descriptive study was conducted, including 35 participants from 18 of the Quebec 34 health institutions created in 2015 by the last reform. Seven themes emerged: (1) taking ownership of the strategic positioning, (2) developing and communicating a vision, (3) making strategic, systematic, and measured choices, (4) reframing roles, (5) getting involved in the strategic decision-making processes, (6) developing the political capacity, and (7) building alliances. Four professional and organizational components influenced the nursing directorates' leadership capacity: clinical credibility, a sufficient number of people educated at the graduate level, organizational culture, and size of the institution. It is expected that these results regarding nursing directorates' exercise of strategic leadership will lead to better governance and quality of nursing 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".