Communities of Practice: Creating Opportunities to Enhance Quality of Care and Safe Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Communities of Practice (CoPs) approach was used to enhance interprofessional practice in seven clinical sites across Alberta. Participating staff were free to decide the area of practice to focus on and the actions to be implemented. All practice changes implemented by the CoPs related to either improving communications (e.g., introduction of joint care meetings) or information transfer (e.g., streamlining of admission and discharge processes). The practice changes contributed to more effective communication of information and more effective transitions of patients between providers, hence potentially reducing errors. The present study demonstrates that CoPs can enhance interprofessional communication and patient safety in traditional care delivery units. In contrast to more structured safety initiatives, sites were able to choose their area of focus. This ensures buy-in and enhances sustainability, making CoPs an interesting option for patient safety initiatives.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".