Quality Improvement, Patient Safety, and Continuing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quality improvement/patient safety (QI/PS) and continuing education (CE) efforts have a common aim to improve health care outcomes. Yet, minimal collaboration occurs between them. This lack of integration can be problematic given the finite resources available and the potential value of approaching health care challenges from different perspectives. The authors conducted an exploratory study to understand Canadian leaders' perceptions and experiences with both their own and the other domain, with the aim of increasing their understanding of the boundaries and opportunities for collaborative approaches to improving health care. METHOD: The authors conducted this study in 2011-2012 using a qualitative interpretivist framework to guide the collection and analysis of data from semistructured interviews. They used criterion-based, maximum variation, and snowball sampling to select 15 leaders from the domains of QI/PS and CE to interview. They transcribed verbatim the interviews and coded the transcripts using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants described the relationship between QI/PS and CE in four ways: (1) the separation of QI/PS and CE as distinct interventions, (2) (re)positioning CE in QI/PS activities, (3) (re)positioning QI/PS in CE activities, and (4) further integrating QI/PS and CE. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for how leaders in QI/PS and CE should mindfully and strategically negotiate their relationship to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of their domain's activities.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".