Expanding patient engagement in quality improvement and health system redesign
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare organizations face growing pressures to increase patient-centred care and to involve patients more in organizational decisions. Yet many providers worry that such involvement requires additional time and resources and do not see patients as capable of contributing meaningfully to decisions. This article discusses three efforts in four organizations to engage patients in quality improvement efforts. McGill University Health Centre, Saskatoon Health Region, and Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health Regions all engaged patients in quality improvement and system redesign initiatives that were successful in improving care processes, outcomes, and patient experience measures. Patient involvement in redesigning care may provide a way to demonstrate the value of patients' experiences and inputs into problem-solving, building support for their involvement in other areas. Further study of these cases and a broader survey of organizational experiences with patient involvement may help elucidate the factors that support greater patient engagement.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it