Barriers of Intraprenurship Practice at South African Public Hospitals: Perspectives of Unit Nurse Managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper highlights the barriers of intrapreneurship practice experienced by unit nurse managers working within the embattled public hospitals. The qualitative study was, descriptive, explorative and contextual in nature. The focus groups’discussions shed light on the plight of front runners constantly experiencing numerous intrapreneurial barriers frustrating ideation into implementable transformative programs. The barriers identified in this study include; lack of resources, security issues affecting freedom of staff and patients, poor staff ratios impacting on the rights of staff and patients, poor communication and unfair incentivised performance management system. The minimal conceptualization of intrapreneurship being quite foreign to nursing revealed in the findings is a wakeup call for senior teams pressured to improve performance. A number of public hospitals reforms consider the salient contribution of human capital in health care being key in driving quality improvement initiatives. Capacity development measures in education and clinical practice is a sensible recommendation through empowering nurses on business inclined management strategies like intrapreneurship practice improving the health care outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".