Integrated Team’s Workshop: “The Value of Togetherness” Building capabilities to enable excellence in healthcare
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: To share strengths and build capabilities for driving excellence in healthcare, Healthcare Excellence Canada (HEC) hosted a workshop which for the first time, brought together participants of two HEC programs - Strengthening Primary Care (SPC) and Cultural Safety Design Collaborative (CSDC). Approach: This workshop brought together coaches and participating team members from across Canada to. Provide an opportunity for relationship building and learning among HEC program teams coaches to improve safe and high-quality healthcare. Share strengths and build capabilities in areas foundational for driving excellence in healthcare, including: - meaningful partnership with people with lived experience including First Nations, Inuit and Mtis, patients, caregivers and communities - addressing racism in the health system and work towards providing culturally safe care; and, - advancing equity-oriented approaches. Build quality improvement capacity to utilize policy and evaluation approaches to demonstrate meaningful impact and support long term improvement.Quality and safety are the foundation of our work - with and for - the people who receive care and those who deliver it. The workshop was a means to live our own excellence- taking a more integrated view that spans the health system.Transforming people through the experience of coming together was a core principle. Under the guidance of HEC Truth Reconciliation Coach, experiential learning was reflected in the purposeful planning of the event from the location to the seating arrangements.Transformation requires individuals to be open to thinking differently. To create an environment where the diversity of perspectives could be valued and respected, we were encouraged by local First Nations partners to open the day in ceremony. Ceremony has a way of grounding us in human connections to others and to the world around us, creating time and space for reflection and engaging a persons heart and mind.The workshop was hosted at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the first museum solely dedicated to the evaluation, celebration and future of human rights. The room was open to other parts of the museum and provided participants with access to outdoor space where a sacred fire burned as part of the ceremony.The pipe ceremony was led by local First Nations Elders and Knowledge Keepers and at the end each participant was invited to make their own tobacco tie and bring it to the sacred fire. The groups moved into fulsome introductions modeled by a facilitator. Coaches and participants were assigned to tables strategically to foster new relationships and bring differing perspectives to conversations throughout the day. Results:87% of respondents rated the workshop as very good/excellent; 89% said the workshop helped to develop and deepen relationships with others"The HEC workshop emphasis on evaluation and relationship building was very helpful to our initiative. We have a lot of expertise with the relationship-based approach but realized through our learnings at the HEC workshop that we have a lot of room to grow in the evaluation area. Specifically, the presentations on a culturally safe approach to evaluation were very helpful and made us realize our approach to evaluation for our Indigenous communities was wrong. We realized through the presentations that we were approaching it from an evaluation of instead of an evaluation with approach. Dave Harris (Northern Interior Rural Development, BC) Implications: The workshop was a collaborative exercise in human level transformation, leveraging the expertise of coaches and guest speakers across two programs delivering meaningful health system change. Through participant surveys and follow-up, we learned about the continued impact of expanded learning and new and deepened relationships.
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 | 0,019 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,003 |
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 ».