The Role of Safety and Quality Councils in Improving the Quality of Healthcare: An Australian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care (the Council) has made considerable advances in gaining acceptance of and commitment to the healthcare safety improvement agenda by all involved in healthcare in Australia. It has provided a focus for national efforts in safety and quality improvement, by raising awareness, building consensus and clarifying areas for priority action. While the Council has set the agenda for change and provides advice in relation to problems, initiatives and actions, it has limited operational capacity and lacks the statutory authority to embed a culture of safety at all levels of the healthcare system. Statutory and regulatory responsibility and accountability for implementation lies with the Australian, State and Territory Governments and organizations in the private sector. Progress depends on coordinating the activities of Departments of Health and Human Services of nine sovereign governments. The "levers for change" available to the Council were leadership, persuasion, advice and example, with the ability to develop strategies, frameworks, standards, tools and guidelines. With the end of the Council's term approaching, a recent review recommended the establishment of an Australian Commission on Safety & Quality in Health Care (the Commission).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.095 | 0.074 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".