Innovation in Healthcare Team Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare delivery is evolving from individual, autonomous practice to collaborative team practice. However, barriers such as professional autonomy, time constraints and the perception of error as failure preclude learning behaviours that can facilitate organizational learning and improvement. Although experimentation, engaging in questions and feedback, discussing errors and reflecting on results can facilitate learning and promote effective performance, the cultural barriers within healthcare can prevent or inhibit this type of behaviour among teams. At the University Health Network's Centre for Innovation in Complex Care, we realize the need for a tool that facilitates learning behaviour and is sensitive to the risk-averse nature of the clinical environment. The vehicle for the Team Feedback Tool is a web-based application called Rypple (www.rypple.com), which allows team members to provide anonymous, rapid-fire feedback on team processes and performance. Rypple facilitates communication, elicits feedback and provokes discussion. The process enables follow-up face-to-face team discussions and encourages teams to create actionable solutions for incremental changes to enhance team health and performance. The Team Feedback Tool was implemented and piloted in general internal medicine at the University Health Network's Toronto General Hospital from early May 2009 to July 2009 to address the issues of teamwork and learning behaviour in the clinical environment. This article explores the opportunities and barriers associated with the implementation of the Team Feedback Tool.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".