Implementing an interprofessional patient safety learning initiative: insights from participants, project leads and steering committee members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Effective teamwork and interprofessional collaboration are vital for healthcare quality and safety; however, challenges persist in creating interprofessional teamwork and resilient professional teams. A study was undertaken to delineate perceptions of individuals involved with the implementation of an interprofessional patient safety competency-based intervention and intervention participants. METHODS: The study employed a qualitative study design that triangulated data from interviews with six steering committee members and five members of the project team who developed and monitored the intervention and six focus groups with clinical team members who participated in the intervention and implemented local patient safety projects within a large teaching hospital in Canada. RESULTS: Our study findings reveal that healthcare professionals and support staff acquired patient safety competencies in an interprofessional context that can result in improved patient and work flow processes. However, key challenges exist including managing projects amidst competing priorities, lacking physician engagement and sustaining projects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to leaders to provide opportunities for healthcare teams to engage in interprofessional teamwork and patient safety projects to improve quality of patient care. Further research efforts should examine the sustainability of interprofessional safety projects and how leaders can more fully engage the participation of all professions, specifically physicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".