MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389294833 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2023-ihi.17

17 How do hospitals ‘walk the talk?’: exploring the connection between hospital goals and practices

2023· article· en· W4389294833 on OpenAlexaffabout
Umair Majid, Carolyn Steele Gray, Pia Kontos, Kerry Kuluski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteTrillium Health CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationHealth carePublic relationsKnowledge managementEmpowermentBusinessOrganizational cultureNursingMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Health service organizations have increasingly adopted mission, vision, and value (MVV) statements, vital for communicating strategic plans and demonstrating organizational goals and values for patient and family engagement (PE). These statements, particularly those promoting patient and family engagement (PE), can significantly influence healthcare practices. Yet, understanding how MVV statements foster PE practices remains unclear. Objectives Explore the link between hospital PE goals and practices. Methods We conducted a scoping review exploring how hospital PE goals encapsulated in MVV statements support PE processes. We further supplemented our review with a qualitative case study of a Canadian hospital system. Results Our findings converge on five strategies for operationalizing hospital PE goals: clear communication of organizational goals; aligning organizational documents and administrative processes with these goals; providing resources and support to staff; and cultivating a culture of motivation and empowerment for staff integration of PE in their work. Conversely, misalignment between hospital goals and practices negatively impacts team dynamics and individual attitudes, underscoring the need for strategic alignment. We identified external regulatory and financial pressures as significant barriers to PE practices. Hospitals serving diverse communities faced additional challenges in developing and communicating PE goals. Emphasizing PE goals in organizational documents and leadership practices spurred PE processes among hospital staff, highlighting the role of strategic alignment in PE implementation. Conclusions Our research offers valuable insights for healthcare organizations in identifying activities and strategies that align goals with practices, ultimately promoting a patient and family-centric healthcare environment. This understanding is crucial for health service organizations aiming to enhance PE and improve health outcomes by leveraging their MVV statements effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207