An Introduction to High-Reliability Leadership Style in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospitals, urgent care units, outpatient clinics, and long-term care facilities constantly keep tightening their safety measures by adopting new interventions. As a result of these efforts, nowadays, fewer patients injure or die from accidental injections, medication errors, falls, or serious healthcare-acquired infections. Yet, many service providers still frequently find themselves at the center of criticism by the media and advocacy groups for their inefficacy in making drastic systematic changes that last. More recent advancements in the field have called for the emulation of the principles of High-Reliability Organizations (HROs) for creating safer services through more radical changes. Building upon this research and juxtaposing it with the leadership literature, our study takes this call one step further by introducing and conceptualizing a leadership style which we call high-reliability leadership style. The chapter also provides a starting point for the advancement of research and practice in healthcare by providing an in-depth exploration of the characteristics of high-reliability leaders. Healthcare organizations can use the findings presented in this chapter for selecting and developing individuals into leadership roles capable of ensuring the sustainable reliability of their care delivery systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".