The better work, better care framework: 7 strategies for sustainable healthcare system process improvement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it