Quality Assurance and Risk Management: A Survey of Dental Schools and Recommendations for Integrated Program Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality assurance (QA) and risk management (RM) programs are intended to improve patient care, meet accreditation standards, and ensure compliance with liability insurance policies. The purpose of this project was to obtain and disseminate information on whether dental schools integrate QA and RM and what mechanisms have been most effective in measuring accomplishments in these programs. All sixty-five U.S. and Canadian dental schools were sent a twenty-nine-item survey, and forty-six (71 percent) schools responded. The main findings are as follows: 66 percent had a written QA program combined with a QA committee; 95 percent received administrative support; there was wide variation in the makeup of the QA committee; many institutions reported significant changes resulting from the QA program; and over half of the respondents merged QA and RM in some fashion. To develop or maintain an effective QA/RM program, the authors propose the following: obtain active support from the dean; develop goals and mission/vision statements; include trained personnel on the committee; establish wide levels of involvement in the QA program; develop QA measurements to ensure compliance with institutionally developed standards of patient care; and establish continuous cycles of improvement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".