Hospital leadership perspectives on the value of the 3 Wishes Project: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Healthcare organisations are increasingly interested in improving the work life of their employees. By encouraging individualised acts of compassion for dying patients and their families, the 3 Wishes Project (3WP) has been shown to ease grief for both families and clinicians. Purpose The objective of this study was to explore the perspectives of hospital leaders on the value of the 3WP to the hospital and how decisions are made about which programmes to support. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 hospital leaders in four North American institutions. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Interviews with 12 clinical managers and 8 senior administrators identified the institutional value of the 3WP as improving patient and family experiences, enhancing staff morale, translating institutional mission and values into front-line practice, and creating positive public relations. Hospital leaders acknowledged potential resource challenges, including staff time, space to store supplies and funds to purchase items for some wishes. However, citing stories they had heard from families and staff, hospital leaders shared their view of how their decisions about the value of clinical programmes extend beyond quantifiable outcomes. Conclusions When reflecting on this personalised palliative care programme, hospital leaders described how inspiring narratives promoted institutional values in ways that are difficult to measure quantitatively. Leaders underscored the need to balance the value that a programme brings with the resources it requires, stating how different types of evidence influence their support of new programmes. Trial registration number NCT04147169 .
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".