Changing Practices for an Innovative Care Pathway, the Mediating Role of the Coordinator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Getting professionals who have been selected and trained to perform individually to work together is a major challenge. The objective of the article is to identify the mechanisms by which a coordinator can ensure a mediation and boundary spanning role to enable the achievement of a project. Adopting a comprehensive approach, this article is based on the case of an innovative hospital project ‘One-Day Diagnosis’ (1DD) – one day instead of several weeks – of hepatobiliary and pancreatic pathologies, for which the professionals had to change their practices. Based on the results of the study, the findings show that the mediating role of the coordinator consists in making things happen and guiding health care professionals through the innovative pathway until it becomes a routine process. The study contributes to the literature on collaboration and relational coordination by highlighting that the change of practices for collaboration is compatible with personal excellence, by outlining the active role of the boundary spanner in the change of these practices and by demonstrating that the organizational stability of projects based on disembodied procedures is a necessary illusion that requires complementary interindividual relationships and a living leadership.MAD statementExtending the understanding of the ways to get individual performers to work together, the study highlighted how the change of health care professionals’ practices is helped by the coordinator, a boundary spanner who makes things happen and accompanies the innovative pathway until its routinization. The study shows that collaboration is possible without giving up personal excellence and that the processual stability aim is an illusion which requires complementary interindividual relationships and a living leadership.
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 | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".