Building positive relationships in healthcare: Evaluation of the teams of interprofessional staff interprofessional education program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Teams of Interprofessional Staff (TIPS) project consisted of five healthcare teams from across Ontario, participating in three, two-day face-to-face interprofessional educational (IPE) sessions over an 8-month period. The purpose of TIPS was to explore whether interprofessional team development for practicing healthcare professionals, makes a difference in team functioning, team member satisfaction, ability to work effectively both individually and as a team, and improved patient well-being. A comprehensive formative and summative evaluation revealed that all teams perceived they benefitted from and engaged in successful team development. Success meant different things to each team reflecting the continuum of team development from building a safe, trusted group to becoming leaders of team development for other interprofessional teams. Effective teamwork is crucial to nurses who often take on the role of coordinator of care on a day-to-day basis, or are in managerial roles in interprofessional clinics or clinical program teams.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it