Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leaders in health care increasingly recognize that improving health care quality and safety requires developing an organizational culture that fosters high reliability and continuous process improvement. For various reasons, a reliability-seeking culture is lacking in most health care settings. Developing a reliability-seeking culture requires leaders' sustained commitment to reliability principles using key mechanisms to embed those principles widely in the organization. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine how key mechanisms used by a primary care practice (PCP) might foster a reliability-seeking, system-oriented organizational culture. METHODOLOGY: A case study approach was used to investigate the PCP's reliability culture. The study examined four cultural artifacts used to embed reliability-seeking principles across the organization: leadership statements, decision support tools, and two organizational processes. To decipher their effects on reliability, the study relied on observations of work patterns and the tools' use, interactions during morning huddles and process improvement meetings, interviews with clinical and office staff, and a "collective mindfulness" questionnaire. The five reliability principles framed the data analysis. FINDINGS: Leadership statements articulated principles that oriented the PCP toward a reliability-seeking culture of care. Reliability principles became embedded in the everyday discourse and actions through the use of "problem knowledge coupler" decision support tools and daily "huddles." Practitioners and staff were encouraged to report unexpected events or close calls that arose and which often initiated a formal "process change" used to adjust routines and prevent adverse events from recurring. Activities that foster reliable patient care became part of the taken-for-granted routine at the PCP. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The analysis illustrates the role leadership, tools, and organizational processes play in developing and embedding a reliable-seeking culture across an organization. Progress toward a reliability-seeking, system-oriented approach to care remains ongoing, and movement in that direction requires deliberate and sustained effort by committed leaders in health care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".