Unlocking the doors: introducing practice development to Canadian healthcare
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
From my early days as a nursing assistant in complex continuing care, I recognised that all was not well in healthcare. I was particularly troubled with practices that I perceived to be antithetical to ‘caring’ and I struggled to facilitate change within my very limited circle of influence. I remember well the day I asked for the key to open the balcony doors on the unit so I could take patients out for a breath of fresh air. Being told by the registered nurse that ‘those doors haven’t been opened in 15 years and that isn’t going to change’, was what I now appreciate as the start of my practice development journey. Although I have had the privilege of observing and contributing to more quality healthcare practices in my subsequent roles as a registered nurse, advanced practice nurse and, most recently, Director of Interprofessional Practice, I am also keen to know how far we have yet to go in bringing that ‘fresh air’ I sought decades ago to our patients through more person centred means. I think our lack of progress can be attributed in part to evolving technologies in healthcare that pull our attention away from the human-to-human exchange that has the most impact on patients’ experience of care. Practice development holds the promise of keeping us focused on our caring practices, in balance with the seductive lure of high tech solutions, to address gaps in our quality care. Canada is not alone in its need of healthcare improvement; media and scholarly literature across the globe abound with examples of poor quality care and calls to action across healthcare sectors, settings and specialties. Canada is, however, distinct because of the absence of practice development as a systematically adopted methodology for meeting quality improvement priorities at provincial, national or even local levels. This is despite how embedded practice development has become at local and national levels in both practice and academic settings beyond North America, with examples including the Older Persons Services National Practice Development Programme in the Republic of Ireland, the New South Wales-based Essentials of Care programme in Australia and the England Centre for Practice Development hosted by Canterbury Christ Church University. These success stories, as well as the breadth of related theoretical and empirical literature that has evolved over the past 20 years, have not influenced Canadian healthcare practices much beyond the level of individual academics and practitioners – a relatively small group of converts.
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 | 0,074 | 0,075 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,060 | 0,044 |
| Communication savante | 0,030 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,029 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 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 ».