MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795339097 · doi:10.1097/qmh.0000000000000164

VA Quality Scholars Quality Improvement Coach Model to Facilitate Learning and Success

2018· article· en· W2795339097 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Olds, Mary A. Dolansky, Kari Gali, Carol Callaway‐Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Management in Health Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsOlds College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Quality managementComputer scienceProcess managementEngineering managementKnowledge managementBusinessEngineeringMarketingEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the increase in quality improvement (QI) education both in practice and in health professions' education, gaps exist in the usefulness and success of QI projects. Barriers to successful QI are a result of delays in implementation, teamwork issues, and lack of QI knowledge. These barriers can be addressed using a QI Coach. A QI Coach is an expert in QI principles who has excellent communication and collaboration skills, and is experienced with organizational policies. The purpose of this article is to (a) describe the VA Quality Scholars (VAQS) QI Coach Model that includes the role of a coach and effective coaching strategies and (b) discuss lessons learned from the application of the VAQS QI Coach Model. The QI Coach facilitates success by providing novice QI teams with practical skills, encouragement, and support.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Management in Health CareSame topicHealthcare Quality and SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207