A Relentless Commitment to Improvement: The Guelph General Hospital Experience
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
P atient experience is now accepted as a key element of quality care.In one of two interviews that touch on the patient experience with Esther Green (EG), Richard Ernst (RE) -the CEO of Guelph General Hospital -talks about the full range of efforts that his organization has used to achieve and sustain excellent patient experience ratings.The interview underlies the importance of an organization-wide approach to improvement that touches on processes, human resources, and culture as well as a relentless commitment to improvement that is manifested through regular meetings that track progress.EG: Guelph General Hospital has seen some positive results with respect to improving the patients' experience.Could you tell me, Richard, what you think are the key factors that have really contributed to the change?RE: I'll start by mentioning that we've been tracking patient satisfaction indicators on a dashboard since 2007.Prior to that, we were certainly reporting the information that came out of the hospital report on a regular basis.A key factor was not just tracking the outcomes but also focusing on opportunities for improvement that are routinely identified through these reports.The organization itself has made a commitment to improving our patient experience, and I think one of the best examples is what's transpired in our Emergency Department over the past couple of years.Emergency, as you know, is an entry point to the hospital.Ninety percent of medical patients admitted to our hospital come through our Emergency Department.That's 55,000 ED patients each year, and it's an area of significance to us relative to patient satisfaction.Starting in about February 2009, Guelph General Hospital became involved in a program of process improvement launched by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.The ministry invested resources in providing consultants to help hospitals in the Waterloo-Wellington LHIN try to move the bar on some of the metrics in the Emergency Departments.In our hospital, we introduced a concept of Lean methodology -value-stream mapping.Using front-line staff, we were able to start to make some changes.For example, when we looked at value-stream mapping, one of the key elements is, you don't do things that don't add value to either care providers or care receivers.If you're not doing things that add no value to patients, you are, by default, improving the patient experience.Throughout that time, we had great physician leadership, and we had nurses from the Emergency Department shadowing nurses up in the Medical Unit and vice versa, so they could walk a mile in someone else's shoes.This led to an acknowledgement that patients who come to the hospital aren't Emergency Department patients and they're not Medical Unit patientsthey are our patients.And it wasn't just those two nursing areas either; it was the diagnostic areas, environmental services, and bed allocation.Everybody who's involved in the process that Geulph General Hospital Quality Comittee: (l-r) Eileen Bain, VP Patient Services and Chief Nursing Executive,
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».