Exploring the use of social network analysis methods in process improvement within healthcare organizations: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication breakdowns among healthcare providers have been identified as a significant cause of preventable adverse events, including harm to patients. A large proportion of studies investigating communication in healthcare organizations lack the necessary understanding of social networks to make meaningful improvements. Process Improvement in healthcare (systematic approach of identifying, analyzing, and enhancing workflows) is needed to improve quality and patient safety. This review aimed to characterize the use of SNA methods in Process Improvement within healthcare organizations. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through a systematic search of seven databases from inception - October 2022. No limits were placed on study design or language. The reviewers independently charted data from eligible full-text studies using a standardized data abstraction form and resolved discrepancies by consensus. The abstracted information was synthesized quantitatively and narratively. RESULTS: Upon full-text review, 38 unique articles were included. Most studies were published between 2015 and 2021 (26, 68%). Studies focused primarily on physicians and nursing staff. The majority of identified studies were descriptive and cross-sectional, with 5 studies using longitudinal experimental study designs. SNA studies in healthcare focusing on process improvement spanned three themes: Organizational structure (e.g., hierarchical structures, professional boundaries, geographical dispersion, technology limitations that impact communication and collaboration), team performance (e.g., communication patterns and information flow among providers., and influential actors (e.g., key individuals or roles within healthcare teams who serve as central connectors or influencers in communication and decision-making processes). CONCLUSIONS: SNA methods can characterize Process Improvement through mapping, quantifying, and visualizing social relations, revealing inefficiencies, which can then be targeted to develop interventions to enhance communication, foster collaboration, and improve patient safety.
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 | 0.062 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".