MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402276563 · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11475-1

Exploring the use of social network analysis methods in process improvement within healthcare organizations: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4402276563 on OpenAlexaff
Troy Francis, Morgan Davidson, Laura C. Senese, Lianne Jeffs, Reza Yousefi‐Nooraie, Mathieu Ouimet, Valeria E. Rac, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioNorth York General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealth administrationHealth informaticsNursing researchWorkflowSocial network analysisSocial mediaProcess (computing)Patient safetyKnowledge managementMedicineData scienceNursingComputer sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.654
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.020 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207