The better work, better care framework: 7 strategies for sustainable healthcare system process improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare systems are under pressure to control costs and improve performance. Efforts to apply improvement trends such as "Lean" and other industrial engineering approaches have led to degradation of the working environment for healthcare professionals. Research is increasingly demonstrating how poor working environments contribute to declines in care quality and has led to calls for a "quadruple aim" with a focus on the working environment alongside quality, cost, and patient experience factors. This paper contributes to the debate by using a "systems" perspective to propose seven strategies by which healthcare systems might be improved without compromising the working environment. This article presents a rationale for these strategies based on current organisational psychology and human factors research and how these strategies might be deployed in practice. The authors argue that better working conditions leads to better care for patients and presents a viable approach for both practitioners and researchers to pursue the "Better Work, Better Care" agenda.
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 | 0.035 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".