Joint health and safety committees – What is their impact in the acute care hospital?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is very little in the literature on the effectiveness of Joint Health and Safety Committees (JHSCs) in the healthcare sector and a paucity of information on how JHSCs are perceived in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: This study was carried out to explore hospital worker, hospital management, and healthcare sector stakeholder views on the effectiveness of JHSCs in the acute healthcare setting. METHODS: The study used a qualitative descriptive design with: (1) nineteen focus groups and twenty two individual interviews in three hospitals of different sizes; and (2) eight individual interviews with external stakeholders. RESULTS: Study findings showed gaps in awareness and understanding of the role and responsibilities of the Joint Health and Safety Committee. Some participants indicated that JHSCs lacked profile and had low visibility in the organization. Facilitators and barriers to JHSC effectiveness were investigated and measures to assess effectiveness identified. The attributes of a "gold standard" JHSC were outlined by respondents and can be used to develop an evidence-driven assessment tool to evaluate JHSCs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate both a continuing need for education and training related to JHSCs and the need to develop better tools to assess JHSC functioning and effectiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".