MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A national strategy for quality and safety in radiotherapy: A comprehensive quality improvement approach.

2014· article· en· W2589639915 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gunita Mitera, E. Vijay Kumar, Matthew Parliament, Crystal Angers, Michael Brundage, Suzanne Drodge, Caitlin Gillan, John French, Louise Bird, Jean‐Pierre Bissonnette, Lianne Wilson, Erika Brown, Michael Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsCBC (Canada)Canadian Association of Nurses in OncologyBC Cancer AgencyCanadian Association of PhysicistsCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedicineGeneral partnershipQuality managementPatient safetyQuality (philosophy)Hospital accreditationQuality assuranceHealth careBusinessMedical educationMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

148 Background: Canada utilizes a public payer, private health care delivery model, delegated sub-nationally. Effective coordination of uniform access to safe, high quality care can be challenging in this and similar international models. Quality improvement in radiotherapy (RT) involves approximately 50% of all cancer patients who will require RT during their illness. The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) is a national quality improvement approach employing pan-Canadian engagement of a multi-disciplinary group of physicians, allied health professionals, administrators and patients. The objectives are to create a national culture of safe, high quality RT delivery for all patients; develop and implement a comprehensive sustainable national program for safe, high quality RT. Methods: All CPQR QA products/programs are processed using standard methodology of review and validation through community consultation, and endorsed by national stakeholders. QA products are incorporated into national QA guidelines and indicators for RT programs, technical equipment and patient experiences; integrating these into a national accreditation program; developing a national RT incident reporting and learning system. Active dissemination strategies use bottom-up and top-down approaches. Results: The national RT programmatic QA guidelines and key quality indicators were released in 2011 and 2013, with 3849 downloads. Approximately 50% of Canadian RT centres indicated implementing CPQR guidelines and changing local QA practices. 9 equipment QA guidelines were developed and validated, 6 are in development. National monitoring and learning structures are being developed through an accreditation program and incident reporting repository to be operated by national organizations for sustainability. Knowledge exchange activities included 26 presentations and 10 national/international invited discussions. A national systematic evaluation process will be executed shortly. Conclusions: CPQR’s national RT QA development and implementation approach is a successful model that can be adopted in other areas of healthcare considering system improvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0080.012
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy→French-language works237,207→