MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2099479854 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2012.22849

Partners in Patient Safety

2012· article· en· W2099479854 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh MacLeod, Wendy Nicklin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Patient Safety Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practicePatient safetyHealth administrationBusinessNursingMedicineMedical emergencyHealth carePublic relationsOperations managementPolitical sciencePublic healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

atient safety in healthcare is, fortunately, not an isolated quest.As seen in the array of contributors in this edition of Healthcare Quarterly, Patient Safety Papers (the sixth in the series), there are many valuable players in this arena.The Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) and Accreditation Canada have come together to co-sponsor this edition since the sharing of knowledge and expertise is so crucial to success in the patient safety forum.It is critical to acknowledge the role that partnerships of many national and jurisdictional organizations play in this quest for a safer healthcare system.The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, provincial health quality councils, the Health Council of Canada and others are dedicated to helping organizations and peers improve the safety of healthcare.Such partnerships foster a coordinated effort that minimizes duplication and promotes the very best in safety.Within the realm of patient safety, Accreditation Canada sets the standards for quality healthcare, inclusive of the required organizational practices (ROPs).CPSI leverages research expertise and provides tools that allow healthcare organizations to meet some of those ROPs.Accreditation Canada and CPSI play complementary roles.With quality healthcare come improved efficiency and better patient outcomes.Through the integration of accreditation within the organization's quality improvement program, Accreditation Canada continues to play a role in enabling highquality care and in ensuring that the patient safety focus is clearly fundamental to achieving this high-quality care.CPSI views accreditation as integral to a safer healthcare system.It develops and uses evidence-based procedures and products to help organizations put into place the necessary tools to enable safety.In 2011, Accreditation Canada completed a comprehensive evaluation of its Qmentum accreditation program.Through the insights gained, Accreditation Canada has provided evidence proving that patient safety and quality healthcare are inextricably linked.In addition, an organization with a strong governing board achieved higher performance by incorporating the ROPs and the Patient Safety Culture Tool.With that in mind, Accreditation Canada recently developed the Patient Safety Strategy Phase Three, which builds on the work done in phases one and two.It also continues to strengthen the role of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.014
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0180.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.020

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues→French-language works237,207→