Factors that shape the development of interprofessional improvement initiatives in health organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality and safety improvement programmes advance the standard of care delivered by health organisations but have been shown to be less effective than anticipated. Implementing improvement programmes require a greater understanding of the impact of the social context and strategies that engage staff. OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors that shaped the development of interprofessional improvement initiatives in a health organisation. METHODS: Data are drawn from a large-scale longitudinal action research study examining interprofessional learning and practice. The setting is an autonomous bounded health jurisdiction in Australia. Within the study, health professionals have conceptualised more than 111 interprofessional improvement projects, of which 76 have evolved into ongoing activities. Textual data were analysed using emergent coding and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Initiatives were shaped by six determinants: site receptivity; team issues; leadership; impact on healthcare relations; impact on quality and safety issues; and extent to which the projects became institutionally embedded. Initiatives that engaged participants and progressed were characterised by and displayed flexible leadership, and ongoing refinement and maturity over time. The local organisational context and initiatives coevolved. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement initiatives are necessary for improved quality of care and patient safety but are difficult to implement and sustain. The factors identified to develop them are constantly under challenge in health services. Improving healthcare quality will, in part, depend upon the ability to provide more flexible and supportive social contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".