Quality improvement in curriculum development
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
Purpose There is a growing emphasis on teaching patient safety principles and quality improvement (QI) processes in medical education curricula. This paper aims to present how the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University of Newfoundland engaged medical students in quality improvement during their recent curriculum renewal process. Design/methodology/approach In the 2013-2014 academic year, the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University of Newfoundland launched an undergraduate medical education curriculum renewal process. This presented a unique opportunity to teach quality improvement by involving students in the ongoing development and continuous improvement of their undergraduate curriculum through the implementation of quality circles and other related QI activities. Findings The authors' experience shows that implementing QI processes is beneficial in the medical education environment, particularly during times of curriculum redesign or implementation of new initiatives. Originality/value Student engagement and participation in the QI process is an excellent way to teach basic QI concepts and improve curriculum program outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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