Ideological tensions amidst rapid and continuous organizational change in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to explore the nature of frontline nurses' experiences of living with rapid and continuous organizational change. Design/methodology/approach A critical hermeneutic approach was utilized. This was a qualitative inquiry theoretically guided by critical management studies. Findings Participants recognized that many change initiatives reflected an ideological shift in healthcare that supported a culture of service, whilst sacrificing a culture of care. A culture of service prioritized cost-savings and efficiency, which saw nurses lose the time and resources required to provide quality, safe care. Practical implications Nurses felt morally responsible to uphold a culture of care, which proved challenging and at times unobtainable. The inability to provide quality, safe care in light of organizational changes resulted in a multitude of negative emotional repercussions, which fostered moral distress. Originality/value The findings from this study bring to light ideological tensions that negatively impact nurses. This study supports the conclusion that the planning, implementation and evaluation of organizational change initiatives must reflect a culture of care in order to alleviate the many negative experiences of organizational change noted in this study.
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 | 0.044 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".