A Matter of Balance: Sharing Front-Line Ownership for Quality and Safety with Patients and Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approach to front-line ownership proposed by Gardam et al. (2017) consists of many elements integral to most approaches to quality improvement. The mix of these elements may need to be modified in circumstances that have the most impact on patient safety, where a higher level of standardization may be essential and a more directive approach may be needed. The inclusion of patients as partners in quality improvement means that staff do not exclusively own the solutions and power must be shared with others whose views may be quite different. When this lens is applied, the concepts proposed by Gardam et al. do not resonate as strongly and in some cases may appear to promote a provider-centred approach where the experience and wisdom of patients, family and community are undervalued. The need to ensure consistency in quality of care across large systems will also require a balance between local customization and system-wide thinking and delivery, where strategies build on the successes of local teams while enabling timely spread throughout other units and sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".