Strategic Change in the Irish Health Services: Comparative Case Studies in Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a study of the implementation of service planning in the Irish health services in the context of significant organisational change. One of the central mechanisms of the Strategic Management Initiative (SMI) is the devolution of accountability and responsibility from the centre to executive agencies. Service planning in the Irish health care sector is seen as part of this strategic planning ethos.\nThis study in examining the function and implementation of the service plan in the Irish health care system drew comparisons with the Canadian experience. A multiple case study design was utilised. Key research questions were tested through analysis of legislation and documentation as well as qualitative interviews with middle and senior management throughout the health care system. The choice was made to study the dynamics of strategic change in their setting by investigating a number of health boards during 2004-2005. The focal points of analysis were structured around three cases in the Irish context and one case in the Canadian context, as well as accounting for the wider institutional influences; the context in which those cases were situated. This wider view included looking at other stakeholder perspectives, including government and other health care organisations in the health care system, and examining the legislative influence.\nThe study narrowed down the conceptual framework to a number of key problems with the Irish experience. The implications for practice derived from the case analysis are presented.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".