Play and Games for Transformational Innovation in the \nOntario Healthcare System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasingly unsustainable healthcare expenditures and the emergence of more complex chronic conditions, the Ontario Health System is a highly bureaucratic structure that continues to evolve at an incremental rate. What’s challenging however, is that expectations of society and patients are changing and increasing; and at the current pace of change, needs are not being reached quickly enough as a whole. \n \nHealthcare in Ontario is an industry attempting to address wicked problems in a complex system and to do so, requires a shift in thinking and drive towards innovation. \n \nInnovation has been defined in many ways. Here, we consider it within a healthcare context. For the purpose of our research, healthcare innovation means the development of new or novel ways of delivering health services that improve the patient experience and impact the system at a large scale. Healthcare organizations have been promoting innovation as a means to solve problems; however, innovation has not been widely defined within this industry, and innovations have occurred in piecemeal ways toward incremental improvement of the existing system. \n \nWe speculate that radical transformation of the healthcare system will require a shift in paradigm to redefine how to meet the health needs of individuals and society. If healthcare organizations wish to be more fully included as active participants in large scale change, they must cultivate the appropriate capacities to integrate futures and design thinking into their practice. Games offer up the potential to encourage problem solving, creativity, and relationship building, all of which are inputs to drive transformational innovation. \n \nIn this research, we aim to explore our primary research question: How might Ontario healthcare organizations use games to foster a culture of innovation? \nWe develop insights by mapping the current healthcare system and examining its behaviour and functions, and by considering its relationship with innovation to date. Further, through a review of literature, we discover what elements contribute to transformational innovation and those that emerge from play and games. Lastly, we select and play two games on the paidic end of the game spectrum (unstructured and open-ended), and discuss their potential fit for the healthcare system. We landed on ideation card games; more specifically, futures-oriented games that would be of interest to a healthcare audience in imagining future trajectories, that offer simple game mechanics easy enough for a group of busy professionals to grasp and align with the theme of transformation. \nWe assert that, backed by a transformational leadership mindset, integrating play and games into their practice, Ontario healthcare organizations might better cultivate and grow their workforce’s capacities to solve problems, be creative, and build relationships, thereby developing cognitive capacities to participate in transformational innovation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".