A case study of a strategic initiative in pediatric rehabilitation transition services: An insiders' perspective on team principles and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The aim was to describe an innovative initiative that took place in a pediatric rehabilitation hospital. The goal of this organization-wide strategic initiative, called the Transition Strategy, was to improve service delivery to children/youth with disabilities and their families at times of life transition. The research question was: What are the key elements that have contributed to the success of the Strategy, from the perspective of team members? The objectives were to describe: (a) the guiding principles underlying team functioning and team practices, (b) key enablers of positive team functioning, (c) the nature of effective team practices, and (d) lessons learned. Methods: A holistic descriptive case study was conducted, utilizing historical documents, tracked outcome data, and the experiences and insights of multidisciplinary team members (the authors). Reflecting an insiders' perspective, the impressions of team members were key sources of data. The perspectives of team members were used to generate key teamwork principles, enablers of team functioning, team practices, and key learnings. Findings and Discussion: Team members identified four guiding humanistic principles (respect, support, partnership, and open communication). These principles underpinned three novel practices that contributed to team effectiveness in the eyes of team members: supportive relational practices, human-centered co-design, and solution-focused communication. Key enablers were the relational style of leadership, and a team climate of innovation, autonomy, and trust, supported by the organizational vision. This team climate fostered a sense of psychological safety, thereby encouraging both experimentation and learning from failure. Conclusions: This article provides information for other healthcare organizations interested in understanding the Strategy's value and its implementation. It provides a practical example of how to adopt a humanistic approach to health care, leading to both innovative service development and thriving among team members.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".