From good intentions to successful implementation: the case of patient safety in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Improvements to patient safety have become a major issue on Canada's already crowded health care policy agenda. This paper applies implementation theory to the practical issues involved with the adoption of patient safety reforms. It is based on a review of the literature and official reports on patient safety and on the author's experience as the chair of the Board of Directors of the Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety created in June 2004. The obstacles and possible solutions to advance the patient safety agenda are discussed. While implementation theory was found to provide a general guide, the author's experience leads him to conclude the literature on governance and organizational change offers more practical advice. Sommaire: L'amélioration de la sécurité des patients est devenue une question majeure du programme déjà chargé des politiques en matière de soins de santé. Le présent article applique une théorie de mise en œuvre aux questions pratiques découlant de l'adoption des réformes sur la sécurité du patient. II est fondé sur une étude de publications et rapports officiels sur la sécurité du patient, ainsi que sur l'expérience de l'auteur en tant que président du conseil d'administration de l'Institut pour la sécurité des patients du Manitoba, créé en juin 2004. II passe en revue les obstacles et les solutions possibles à la promotion du programme de la sécurité des patients. Si l'auteur trouve que la théorie de la mise en œuvre fournit un guide général, son expérience le pousse à conclure que la documentation sur la gouvernance et les changements organisationnels offre davantage de conseils pratiques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".