MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988025400 · doi:10.1186/cc9905

Understanding staff perspectives on collaborative quality improvement in the ICU: a qualitative exploration

2011· article· en· W1988025400 on OpenAlexaff
KN Dainty, DC Scales, Brigette Hales, Tasnim Sinuff, Merrick Zwarenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality managementQualitative researchPerspective (graphical)NursingCollaborative CareIntervention (counseling)Quality (philosophy)Health careMedical educationFamily medicinePrimary careOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite extensive use of QI collaboratives in healthcare and in critical care, little is known about the impact of the collaborative approach on how the intervention is taken up within participating organizations. This in-depth qualitative study investigates the frontline critical care staff perspective on being involved in a large collaborative network for ICU quality 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.913
GPT teacher head0.733
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207