Work Life and Patient Safety Culture in Canadian Healthcare: Connecting the Quality Dots Using National Accreditation Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fostering quality work life is paramount to building a strong patient safety culture in healthcare organizations. Data from two patient safety culture and work-life questionnaires used for Accreditation Canada's national program were analyzed. Strong team leadership was reported in that units were doing a good job of identifying, assessing and managing risks to patients. Seventy-one percent of respondents gave their unit a positive overall grade on patient safety, and 79% of respondents felt that they could often do their best-quality work in their job. However, healthcare workers felt that they did not have enough time to do their jobs adequately and indicated that co-workers were cutting corners in patient care in order to save time. This article discusses engaging both senior leadership and the entire organization in the change process, ensuring supervisory support, and using performance measures to focus organizational efforts on key priorities all as improvement strategies relevant to these findings. These strategies can be used by organizations across sectors and jurisdictions and by healthcare leaders to positively affect work life and patient safety.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".