“A different sense of what we do here, who we are and what we deliver”: Provider perspectives on the effects of a change in governance of healthcare services in correctional facilities in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, British Columbia (BC) transferred responsibility for healthcare services in provincial correctional facilities from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to the Ministry of Health. This study explored how healthcare leadership perceived the impact of the transfer on services, work-life, and job satisfaction. We conducted one-on-one interviews ( n = 8) with healthcare managers and medical and administrative leadership within Correctional Health Services. Using the Two-Factor theory of job satisfaction as a framework, we applied Interpretive Description methodology to analyse interview data. Participants identified changes to four areas of the working environment: (1) staffing, equipment, and resources (2) systems of supervision and support (3) standards, policies, and quality improvement and (4) culture and orientation. These changes predominantly affected motivational factors of job satisfaction and were described as enriching the roles of managers and staff. Participants described improved autonomy and recognition of providers, increased quality of services delivered, and a shift toward patient-centred care. The perspectives of healthcare leaders provide new insight into the potential impact of transferring healthcare services in custody to a public healthcare system. Discussion of changes and their affects also provide practical learning for jurisdictions seeking to improve healthcare under a variety of governance and service-delivery models.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".