MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739977020 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10052

Teaching Quality Improvement in Emergency Medicine Training Programs: A Review of Best Practices

2017· review· en· W2739977020 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationCurriculumBest practiceMedical educationQuality (philosophy)Patient safetyGraduate medical educationTraining (meteorology)MedicineQuality managementEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineeringPedagogyHealth careManagement systemOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International graduate medical accreditation bodies are placing increasing emphasis on resident education and competency in the principles of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS). Current QIPS educational curricula are heterogeneous and variably attain stated objectives. We have conducted a review of QIPS curricular best practices and barriers to implementation of successful QIPS curricula and provide clear solutions aimed at overcoming these barriers. Emergency medicine programs provide fertile ground for QIPS initiatives and can become world leaders in QIPS curricular development and education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.715
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.051 · 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